Abortion

[viole]

But bodily autonomy implies a moral stance, as do many other laws. Bodily autonomy can be used for a variety of anti-family measures like no fault divorce, children divorcing from their parents and abortion on demand.

I have a question. What is the moral difference between a condom and the day after pill?
Both prevent reproduction without knowing if reproduction would take place, if not used.

Sorry, but I am trying to set the parameters right for the rest of the discussion.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Cephus]

I am being honest and I am doing so. You said, "these kids will be abused, is that what you want?" and I replied, "is an enhanced statistical likelihood of abuse cause to terminate?"

Well, is it?

Lie much? I never said that they *WILL* be abused, only that they have a much higher statistical likelihood of it happening and that is borne out by every study out there. Apparently, you don't really care about kids getting abused. And if the mother wants to terminate, she is welcome to terminate, whether you like her reasons or not. Your opinion is entirely irrelevant.

 

[leibowde84]

But bodily autonomy implies a moral stance, as do many other laws. Bodily autonomy can be used for a variety of anti-family measures like no fault divorce, children divorcing from their parents and abortion on demand.

What do you think bodily autonomy is? How would no-fault divorce be relevant?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have a question. What is the moral difference between a condom and the day after pill?
Both prevent reproduction without knowing if reproduction would take place, if not used.

Sorry, but I am trying to set the parameters right for the rest of the discussion.

Ciao

- viole

For the Biblicist? They would say quotations like "I'm fearfully, wonderfully made, when I was knit in secret, and you knew all my days before I lived them." A condom can help prevent conception without being an abortafacient. A condom is one option for a variety of reasons. The termination of a true life is not acceptable to people of morals and reason, and the difference between pro life and pro choice advocates revolves around when life begins.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Lie much? I never said that they *WILL* be abused, only that they have a much higher statistical likelihood of it happening and that is borne out by every study out there. Apparently, you don't really care about kids getting abused. And if the mother wants to terminate, she is welcome to terminate, whether you like her reasons or not. Your opinion is entirely irrelevant.

I beg your pardon. You wrote that it being statistically being more likely for unwanted children to be abused, "Is that what you [Billiards Ball] want?" I replied--paraphrasing again now, if you don't mind--"What's wrong with you? Do we kill people based on statistical probabilities of suffering?" While I wouldn't abort a child, for say, a high likelihood of Down's syndrome or a debilitating disease, because you are on a slippery slope, you were implying we should do so because of a possibility of suffering. This world is filled with suffering--Christians await a better place as well.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What do you think bodily autonomy is? How would no-fault divorce be relevant?

Because what God has joined, people are to attempt to adhere to. God joins the baby and mother together. God loves marriage--it's one of His fine installations/institutions. A marriage can be dissolved for adultery, a marriage can be separated for the health and life of one whose partner is violent, abusive. "I am my own and belong to no person in any part" can lead to no fault divorce--which is a legal certification of either equal reason for divorce between partners or NO reason. "We just felt like separating." Sad.

 

[Cephus]

I beg your pardon. You wrote that it being statistically being more likely for unwanted children to be abused, "Is that what you [Billiards Ball] want?" I replied--paraphrasing again now, if you don't mind--"What's wrong with you? Do we kill people based on statistical probabilities of suffering?" While I wouldn't abort a child, for say, a high likelihood of Down's syndrome or a debilitating disease, because you are on a slippery slope, you were implying we should do so because of a possibility of suffering. This world is filled with suffering--Christians await a better place as well.

It's a perfectly valid thing to ask. We only have one life that we know of. Christians have a fantasy world but no evidence that it actually exists so I'm not going to waste my time waiting for it. We only have this life until you can prove otherwise. As such, we have to worry about suffering that actually occurs in this world. Fetuses that cease to exist do not suffer after birth because they are never born. While you're welcome to make whatever choices you want to make with your own children, you have no ability to tell others what to do in a legally permissible choice like abortion. You can have all the Down's syndrome kids you want. It's where you start trying to impose your views on others that you run into problems.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's a perfectly valid thing to ask. We only have one life that we know of. Christians have a fantasy world but no evidence that it actually exists so I'm not going to waste my time waiting for it. We only have this life until you can prove otherwise. As such, we have to worry about suffering that actually occurs in this world. Fetuses that cease to exist do not suffer after birth because they are never born. While you're welcome to make whatever choices you want to make with your own children, you have no ability to tell others what to do in a legally permissible choice like abortion. You can have all the Down's syndrome kids you want. It's where you start trying to impose your views on others that you run into problems.

You wrote (besides some dismissive ad homonyms regarding my faith in Jesus Christ):

It's where you start trying to impose your views on others that you run into problems.

Currently, their are people absolutely imposing their views regarding the sanctity of life or lack thereof--you are misunderstanding, I think, some aspects of voting and legal issues. If abortion is voted down by a citizen-led constitutional amendment, why is that imposing views on others any more or any less than supporting abortion by referendum?

 

[leibowde84]

Because what God has joined, people are to attempt to adhere to. God joins the baby and mother together. God loves marriage--it's one of His fine installations/institutions. A marriage can be dissolved for adultery, a marriage can be separated for the health and life of one whose partner is violent, abusive. "I am my own and belong to no person in any part" can lead to no fault divorce--which is a legal certification of either equal reason for divorce between partners or NO reason. "We just felt like separating." Sad.

But, aren't we talking about legal rights? God and God's wishes/rules cannot be considered in matters such as these, as that would mean that the state would be establishing religious beliefs (God's existence, God's will, etc.) as fact.

So, how is anyone of that relevant?

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's a perfectly valid thing to ask. We only have one life that we know of. Christians have a fantasy world but no evidence that it actually exists so I'm not going to waste my time waiting for it. We only have this life until you can prove otherwise. As such, we have to worry about suffering that actually occurs in this world. Fetuses that cease to exist do not suffer after birth because they are never born. While you're welcome to make whatever choices you want to make with your own children, you have no ability to tell others what to do in a legally permissible choice like abortion. You can have all the Down's syndrome kids you want. It's where you start trying to impose your views on others that you run into problems.

The "proof otherwise" you write about logically resides in our ability to use tools outside the Bible to confirm the Bible is honest, factual. Then we would have the recorded words of someone who died and rose from the dead. He could thus speak with authority as to the next world.

As for abortion, I agree--it's where we impose our views on others that there are logical problems, exactly as you wrote! For example:

* If we have an absolute value to protect the rights of people, why would we end people's lives?

* Without a right to life, there is no right of choice. How can we lift the right to life to ensure choice? What is the choice(s) denied termed unborn children?

* 20 years ago, 26-week fetuses stood little chance of survival delivered prematurely. Now, they certainly have a terrific chance with NICU care. We 26-week-old-fetuses less human 20 years ago? Is viability an objective standard or a subjective standard?

* How come the right to bodily autonomy ends another's right to live? In what other human circumstance would we say we're justly promoting the right for some to live free specifically by denying others the right to live at all?

 

[BilliardsBall]

But, aren't we talking about legal rights? God and God's wishes/rules cannot be considered in matters such as these, as that would mean that the state would be establishing religious beliefs (God's existence, God's will, etc.) as fact.

So, how is anyone of that relevant?

You are correct unless we look at one of your premises, namely, "God's wishes/rules cannot be considered in matters such as these, as that would mean that the state would be establishing religious beliefs". There's a difference between a just law that affirms a religious belief, or coincides with a religious belief, and a law that establishes religious beliefs--and in the USA, now, by the way, not Russia or places under Sharia. It would be wrong and unconstitutional to have a law "You must worship on Sunday." It is correct to have a law "do not murder" even though that is a specific Bible law as well! The desire, often appropriate, to not have a law establishing religious beliefs in no way implies that all laws must contradict religious beliefs. Quite the opposite since common law and precedent law both have themes of inalienable, god-granted rights. You are suggesting bodily autonomy is appropriate in this debate based on an inalienable under-God right to pursuit of happiness, to freedom. Yes? No?

 

[JoStories]

* How come the right to bodily autonomy ends another's right to live? In what other human circumstance would we say we're justly promoting the right for some to live free specifically by denying others the right to live at all?

Emphasis mine above. There is no 'another' until the fetus takes a breath. Until then, it is a symbiotic creature with no life of its own. The woman who decides to have an abortion has the right to make that choice. In my case, I would not have wanted to carry the fetus that I was raped with by my grandfather and then have to raise that abomination at 15 and neither did my father who arranged this for me before it was legal.

 

[leibowde84]

You are correct unless we look at one of your premises, namely, "God's wishes/rules cannot be considered in matters such as these, as that would mean that the state would be establishing religious beliefs". There's a difference between a just law that affirms a religious belief, or coincides with a religious belief, and a law that establishes religious beliefs--and in the USA, now, by the way, not Russia or places under Sharia. It would be wrong and unconstitutional to have a law "You must worship on Sunday." It is correct to have a law "do not murder" even though that is a specific Bible law as well! The desire, often appropriate, to not have a law establishing religious beliefs in no way implies that all laws must contradict religious beliefs. Quite the opposite since common law and precedent law both have themes of inalienable, god-granted rights. You are suggesting bodily autonomy is appropriate in this debate based on an inalienable under-God right to pursuit of happiness, to freedom. Yes? No?

This is incorrect. I am not talking about laws that coincide with religious beliefs. You are suggesting that the legislature considers their subjective opinion as to what they think God would want and how His would want them to legislate. No reasoning should be based on subjective religious beliefs about views of God's will.

 

[Unification]

Because what God has joined, people are to attempt to adhere to. God joins the baby and mother together. God loves marriage--it's one of His fine installations/institutions. A marriage can be dissolved for adultery, a marriage can be separated for the health and life of one whose partner is violent, abusive. "I am my own and belong to no person in any part" can lead to no fault divorce--which is a legal certification of either equal reason for divorce between partners or NO reason. "We just felt like separating." Sad.

Why isn't there marriage in heaven then? The marriage you're referring to is mankinds installation and institution.

 

[Unification]

You wrote (besides some dismissive ad homonyms regarding my faith in Jesus Christ):



Currently, their are people absolutely imposing their views regarding the sanctity of life or lack thereof--you are misunderstanding, I think, some aspects of voting and legal issues. If abortion is voted down by a citizen-led constitutional amendment, why is that imposing views on others any more or any less than supporting abortion by referendum?

Can't stop life either way. For many "Christians," this life is mundane and meant to be about suffering anyhow. An indirect/unaware way of saying "this life isn't good enough for me, I want more and better." Another indirect/unaware way of saying "there is no such thing as an abortion, what's aborted doesn't even die and just goes to "heaven" anyway... It would be a blessing to skip this mundane and suffering life."

 

[SkepticThinker]

I beg your pardon. You wrote that it being statistically being more likely for unwanted children to be abused, "Is that what you [Billiards Ball] want?" I replied--paraphrasing again now, if you don't mind--"What's wrong with you? Do we kill people based on statistical probabilities of suffering?" While I wouldn't abort a child, for say, a high likelihood of Down's syndrome or a debilitating disease, because you are on a slippery slope, you were implying we should do so because of a possibility of suffering. This world is filled with suffering--Christians await a better place as well.

I'm not going to sit around waiting for some better place after I'm dead. I'd rather work to make this place we live in a better place while I'm living the only life I know we all get for sure.

 

[Cephus]

Currently, their are people absolutely imposing their views regarding the sanctity of life or lack thereof--you are misunderstanding, I think, some aspects of voting and legal issues. If abortion is voted down by a citizen-led constitutional amendment, why is that imposing views on others any more or any less than supporting abortion by referendum?

If they happen to do that, and I wouldn't be holding my breath, that's fine. But that's not what we're seeing, we're seeing people in political power imposing their views on others who do not share their views, totally in opposition to their job descriptions and their oaths of office. It's like the Kim Davis thing. She was hired to do a job. She is not doing that job. She is pretending that her religion comes first. She is wrong.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Emphasis mine above. There is no 'another' until the fetus takes a breath. Until then, it is a symbiotic creature with no life of its own. The woman who decides to have an abortion has the right to make that choice. In my case, I would not have wanted to carry the fetus that I was raped with by my grandfather and then have to raise that abomination at 15 and neither did my father who arranged this for me before it was legal.

There was no possible adoption where you were? Was someone saying you were forced to raise the child at age 15?

The child is genetic unique and has its full genetic potential at conception. There is nothing to be added after conception to make it a new species or more or less of a person. I'm sorry you experienced rape and horror. I'm sorry you dealt with this trauma.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is incorrect. I am not talking about laws that coincide with religious beliefs. You are suggesting that the legislature considers their subjective opinion as to what they think God would want and how His would want them to legislate. No reasoning should be based on subjective religious beliefs about views of God's will.

Most great philosophers of all styles of belief would say reasoning has to be based both on God's reason and on objective ideas and morals. I respectfully disagree. And I wouldn't place much faith (pun not intended) in judges and jurors claiming to suspend all godly morality while deciding cases based on subjective morality.

 

[leibowde84]

Most great philosophers of all styles of belief would say reasoning has to be based both on God's reason and on objective ideas and morals. I respectfully disagree. And I wouldn't place much faith (pun not intended) in judges and jurors claiming to suspend all godly morality while deciding cases based on subjective morality.

We certainly don't have a perfectly adhered to constitution. No argument there. Point is that they shouldn't, according to constitutional law, including precedent created by case law of course.