Abortion

[BilliardsBall]

Hey - if you don't want to be called on your shenanigans, then don't pull shenanigans. Asking someone to find text that describes a woman's right to end her pregnancy in a book that doesn't really support women's rights in general is what we call a snipe hunt; a wild goose chase. Not being able to find a verse like what you describe in the Bible doesn't say anything about the Bible being anti-abortion, since an alternative interpretation - i.e. that the Bible is just anti-woman - fits the facts at hand as well.


The mere fact that someone does impressive things doesn't mean they aren't being deprived of their rights.


In Numbers 3, God asks the Israelites to count how many people are in each tribe and how to do it. In the instructions on how to do it, he says to count the males older than 1 month. Apparently, women and girls don't count, and boys only count after a month of age.

If you like, there's also the passage (in 1 or 2 Kings?) where God tortures David and Bathsheba's newborn baby to death. If it's okay to kill a wanted baby of indeterminate age, why not an unwanted fetus?

"Asking someone to find text that describes a woman's right to end her pregnancy in a book that doesn't really support women's rights in general is what we call a snipe hunt; a wild goose chase. Not being able to find a verse like what you describe in the Bible doesn't say anything about the Bible being anti-abortion, since an alternative interpretation - i.e. that the Bible is just anti-woman - fits the facts at hand as well."

I don't understand you here, sorry.

"The mere fact that someone does impressive things doesn't mean they aren't being deprived of their rights."

What does this mean, please? I don't understand your sentence.

"In Numbers 3, God asks the Israelites to count how many people are in each tribe and how to do it. In the instructions on how to do it, he says to count the males older than 1 month. Apparently, women and girls don't count, and boys only count after a month of age. If you like, there's also the passage (in 1 or 2 Kings?) where God tortures David and Bathsheba's newborn baby to death. If it's okay to kill a wanted baby of indeterminate age, why not an unwanted fetus?"

Numbers 3 is regarding taxation, not life or death. We have rules in America regarding tax credits for the young--please do not infer that the IRS and legislature are therefore making a statement about abortion! I suspect you've been browsing atheist websites, which are not quite ReligiousForums.com worthy, you know what I mean?

Where did God torture David's baby to death? I must have missed that the last 10 or 20 times I read the story.

 

[dust1n]

Your argument was gross and obnoxious, it trivialized human conception and a life and death abortion debate.

And if you change my unfortunate "live long enough" to "be fortunate enough" you have the idea about the "miraculous providence" of human conception. Thank you for the correction.

Yeah, sorry bud, going back to the original moment you responded to me in the first place, I'm having trouble of making sense of your posts.

 

[Cephus]

Providence - God does something nice for you. Happens often to believers and unbelievers alike.

Prove it. Prove God actually does anything to anyone, ever. This ought to be good.

Miracle - Rare occurrence in which God overcomes what we call natural law to intercede.

Produce one. Just one. Prove it was actually a miracle, performed by God. This also ought to be entertaining.

A lot of pro-life people mention "the miracle of birth". Well, your own birth only happened once in history. It was a rare occurrence and wonderful! But a miracle? It happened via natural law/natural occurrence. But blessed and providential!

It is a natural occurrence, there's no evidence that any imaginary friends in the sky had anything to do with it. Births happen by the millions every single day.

 

[SomeRandom]

If a one-pound baby can be birthed prematurely than saved to life in a NICU, would you personally "allow" elective abortions upon one-and-one-half pound fetuses? Your equivocation demonstrates the unwise choice of terminating a fetus if you're unsure it's "really a life"...

Yes. Like I said, I am pro choice. Not pro choice only when I agree with the choice. Is this concept foreign to you or something, mate?
Okay so (I had to Google a pound because I only know the metric system) at one pound this is at approximately 22 -26 weeks, yes? The second trimester? I would assume that the chances of survival are taken into account when the woman consults her Doctor. You know? The medical professional?!! And not some random yahoo quoting crap from the interwebz!!
Here's the survival rates I found.
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/what...remely_premature_infant-health/article_em.htm
Ehh, if a woman still wants to abort a fetus that has 2 or 3 out 10 survival rating, then that's her business. But I'm pretty sure most people would have aborted before the 3 month mark (unless they couldn't find a medical facility. Ahem!!)

...Which sentiment underscores my slavery analogy. 1) It has to do with "looking the other way". No reasonable person would EVER kill a child, pro-life people say a fetus is a child, and pro-choice people don't "see" the child.

Let me break it down for you.
In a slavery scenario the "Southerners" as you put it are literally owning other people. They have gotten rid of the slave's personal autonomy and deprived them of this right. Therefore someone saying "well they have that right" by default deprives a fully autonomous human of their personal autonomy.
A woman has an abortion of her own free choice. She is not denied her personal autonomy as such not akin to slavery. A woman is forced to abort or carry the child to term. This violates her right to personal autonomy and therefore can be argued that it is akin to slavery. Do you follow? Your analogy only works if you ignore the actual slaves in the scenario. The slavers can't be given that choice to own slaves because that is infringing on another (post birth even) person's rights and personal autonomy. A fetus doesn't have those same rights, it has the potential to if it survives outside of the womb. But it's rights are limited at best.

The "problem" you found in my analogy is no problem at all, rather an affirmation that we hold the same absolute values. Because you are concerned with the autonomy of the slave, you would have been willing to say, have the North use force so that the slave owners and the states would lose their autonomy (secession, state's rights, slave owner's rights to dispose of their "property").

Yes, I find the black and white "absolute values" thing quite simplistic and lacking nuance.
The personal autonomy a person has doesn't trump the personal autonomy of another person. And people aren't property, not even kids are property though I have seen American law treat them as such (ours do too, but not as much. That's not a swipe against America, mind you. Merely an observation.) That's why slavery is illegal to begin with. That's why kidnapping is illegal. That's why rape is illegal. That's why false imprisonment is illegal. That's why you can't be forced to give even an ounce of blood to a dying person. You want to argue that the personal autonomy of white southern ******** trump the personal autonomy of slaves because????? You consider black people to not be people? That may have worked when we bolstered our hubris in the past with faulty "Science" but not today. Which is what we're dealing with here. Not 200 years ago, we live in the year 2015. We have moved on and can say that in hindsight slavery was ****ty. Drudging up something that happened before our grandparents were even born doesn't help your case. I could argue well, opium usage was prominent 200 years ago, it wasn't illegal per se. So let us make opium usage legal now and have opium dens like we used to!! Or let's go back further. The Witch Trials!! Do you want to argue that the personal autonomy of the judges outrank the victim's right not to be burnt alive for a crime they didn't commit? Why? I certainly haven't.

The baby's autonomy, apparently, is only in force when the baby is no longer dependent on the mother...

YES! When a fetus leaves the womb, all it really needs is an adult. It doesn't need a mother then, otherwise single dads would all kill their infants by their sheer existence. So once a fetus leaves the womb, then I consider it's autonomy to be in force.

...but toddlers also die when left exposed in the cold. How about them? Use your absolute values consistently.

I am. Like you just said, the autonomy of the baby is only in force when the baby is no longer dependent on the mother (I said specifically several times and even just before that the perimeters are this. When the baby leaves the womb of the mother and can survive without her. I don't know of many toddlers still inside the womb, Do you?) Stop trying to twist my values to say I'm not against killing toddlers, sir. It's most intellectually dishonest.

 

[yellowfang]

There are a lot of religious arguments (and general political ones) against abortion. But I think that the argument, generally speaking, demonstrates the scientific illiteracy of the everyman.

So you're against abortion for whatever reason, but consider this argument from Neil DeGrasse Tyson:

"Most abortions are spontaneous and happen naturally within the human body. Most women who have such an abortion never know it because it happens within the first month. It is very, very common. So in fact the biggest abortionist, if god is responsible for what goes on in your body, is god."

Now when he says 'very common' what he means is 50-70%. That's 50-70% of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion that you 1) can't control and 2) are never aware of.

So how is the anti-abortionist stance tenable given this dataset?

Death and suffering entered the world through man's sin.

God never sucked a baby to pieces with a high-suction vacuum.

God makes the rules. If He ends the life of a baby, as the Author of all life, He has that authority. If man ends the life of a baby, he has committed murder, by definition.

 

[yellowfang]

The bible, in particular, describes how an abortion is performed (numbers 5: 11-31), so it can be safely assumed that the Abrahamic god has no particular aversion to abortion.

The Bible consistently describes the sins of man.

By your logic, because the bible describes how Cain murdered Abel, God clearly has no aversion to murder.

As to your earlier assertion, that one must prove that God exists: if you have not studied the bible (history, archaeology, consistency, prophecy), then my assertion will fall flat: the evidence is compelling that He exists, and is as described.

If I am wrong, then I lose nothing in death. If you are wrong, you face eternal suffering in death.

 

[yellowfang]

You are making some distinction in the use of the word "life" which seems inapplicable. It is of no great import what your opinion is, since laws need to be based on facts. If it is your opinion that abortion is wrong, I fully support your right not to have one and to teach this value to your offspring. I do not support making laws from your opinion, however.

Do not deceive yourself. Laws are based on morals.

 

[yellowfang]

It's the law, whether you like that or not. A fetus is not a viable child until it takes a breath. A living breathing human cannot be murdered and if you don't see the difference, I don't have the time or inclination to try to educate you. Good day.

That sure is condescending. I suggest that your argument doesn't hold water, which is why you won't take the time to articulate it.

The question of law is one of right or wrong. When abortion was legal, it wasn't settled, as it was then changed (made legal). Ergo, the fact that it is legal doesn't make it settled. And it continues to change.

And this is the the very problem with depending on man's definition of right and wrong. With man, there are no absolutes.

 

[yellowfang]

We are talking about elective abortion. The only life about which there is no question of viability is the pregnant female. A fetus, until it survives birth, is still only the potential of life.

A baby born at 36 weeks can survive, with assistance. Between this unborn baby, one born at 40 weeks, and a baby born at 40 weeks who is nursed for two weeks: which is "not viable"?

Our legal and medical definitions are absurd. They are designed or chosen for the convenience of man. If someone wants to kill the life within a womb, he has only to use legal and medical jargon to relieve himself of as much guilt as possible.

 

[yellowfang]

No it's not. And you might do well to re-read what I've already posted. Legally, no one has the right to conscript another person in order to further their own life. I respect your opinion, which is why I haven't challenged it. I'm sorry you seem to not respect the legalities of the situation, but I feel like thus thread is a perfect example of precisely why it's needed.

How about the presumption of responsibility? It's no surprise where babies come from. If a woman wants to be sexually active, she should recognize that birth control isn't 100% effective. If you aren't ready to have a baby, why are you having sex?

I swear, people are so incredibly self-centered, and painfully selfish, it would make me physically I'll if I weren't so myself.

And before you bring it up, I'm deeply pained for those who are raped. Men are supposed to be society's, and women's, protectors and defenders. Look at what we've become. A bunch of hump-happy juvenile delinquents in men's bodies. But the baby conceived in rape bears no responsibility for the circumstances of his creation. He (or she) deserves the full protection and love of at least one parent, if not both (I know, fat chance).

With everything a woman stands to lose, why would she ever consent to sex outside of marriage? I'm surrounded by men who live with their girlfriends, yet appear to be constantly on the prowl.

Don't get me started on the state of marriage.

 

[yellowfang]

No it's not. And you might do well to re-read what I've already posted. Legally, no one has the right to conscript another person in order to further their own life. I respect your opinion, which is why I haven't challenged it. I'm sorry you seem to not respect the legalities of the situation, but I feel like thus thread is a perfect example of precisely why it's needed.

Let's not lose sight of one thing: for most of this country's history, the laws related to family, sex, et cetera were based on *what was most beneficial for the children involved*. In all other cases, your conscription argument would be well founded. Until recently, The Law presumed that the welfare of the child superseded the welfare of the parents.

 

[SomeRandom]

How about the presumption of responsibility? It's no surprise where babies come from. If a woman wants to be sexually active, she should recognize that birth control isn't 100% effective. If you aren't ready to have a baby, why are you having sex?

Maybe because we're mammals? Specifically primates. Sex is often used to strengthen intimacy and the bond we humans have with our partner.
In fact some people consider The sexual fulfilment of their spouse as a marital and religious duty. In my family's tradition if a man does not sexually satisfy his wife or vice versa then the married couple have failed their duty and dharma. They have effectively "sinned" as the Abrahamics would say.
Not all people view sex as some boring mechanical thing married people do so they can have kids. Case in point the Tantrics who view sexuality as intrinsically intertwined with morality.

Also why are the MEN having sex with their woman if they don't want kids? It takes two to tango. Why is your comment focused on women having sex when men are just as responsible?

I swear, people are so incredibly self-centered, and painfully selfish, it would make me physically I'll if I weren't so myself.

And before you bring it up, I'm deeply pained for those who are raped. Men are supposed to be society's, and women's, protectors and defenders. Look at what we've become. A bunch of hump-happy juvenile delinquents in men's bodies. But the baby conceived in rape bears no responsibility for the circumstances of his creation. He (or she) deserves the full protection and love of at least one parent, if not both (I know, fat chance).
.

Don't bother with your simpering attempt at feigning sympathy for victims of rape. Please. As a survivor I find it insulting. Sorry that's just how I feel.

Forcing a raped woman to bring a baby to term against her will does nothing but cause harm to both of them. The stress the psychological detrimental affects. It's all very well to pontificate "oh won't somebody think of the children?" When you ignore the actual proven affects this has on the woman. The pro life crowd like to claim they speak on behalf of those that can't and then turn around and abjectly refuse to speak on behalf of victims of rape. Like it baffles me. Do you guys even give a damn about the woman? Or is she supposed to be some breeding mare?

With everything a woman stands to lose, why would she ever consent to sex outside of marriage? I'm surrounded by men who live with their girlfriends, yet appear to be constantly on the prowl.
.

With everything a woman stands to lose? What year do you live in, mate? 1940?
We tend to not care that much about sex outside of wedlock anymore. Nor does society tend to go out of it's way to shame and humiliate ********, well not nearly as much anyway. Thankfully.

Though I agree that "playas" are ****ty guys.

Don't get me started on the state of marriage.

Okay that I can agree with.Perhaps not for all the reasons you may be thinking of. But still.

 

[JoStories]

The Bible consistently describes the sins of man.

By your logic, because the bible describes how Cain murdered Abel, God clearly has no aversion to murder.

As to your earlier assertion, that one must prove that God exists: if you have not studied the bible (history, archaeology, consistency, prophecy), then my assertion will fall flat: the evidence is compelling that He exists, and is as described.

If I am wrong, then I lose nothing in death. If you are wrong, you face eternal suffering in death.

How can you possibly say that God-- to clarify: the god of the Bible which I do not for one second believe in, how can you say God has no aversion to murder when it was the god of your Bible that murdered all the newborn sons of Egypt or the people of Sodom and so on. I have no issue with what people wish to believe. I do, however, have an issue with people trying to force their religion on me and on laws that govern me and my family.

 

[JoStories]

That sure is condescending. I suggest that your argument doesn't hold water, which is why you won't take the time to articulate it.

The question of law is one of right or wrong. When abortion was legal, it wasn't settled, as it was then changed (made legal). Ergo, the fact that it is legal doesn't make it settled. And it continues to change.

And this is the the very problem with depending on man's definition of right and wrong. With man, there are no absolutes.

You can spin this any way you wish but abortion is legal. I don't see that changing any time soon. You can do what works for you, IE: have no abortions. I, OTOH, am free to have one should the need arise. It wouldn't as I am now very much older. But if I wanted one, or my grandchildren did, I would support them 100%.

 

[JoStories]

How about the presumption of responsibility? It's no surprise where babies come from. If a woman wants to be sexually active, she should recognize that birth control isn't 100% effective. If you aren't ready to have a baby, why are you having sex?

I swear, people are so incredibly self-centered, and painfully selfish, it would make me physically I'll if I weren't so myself.

And before you bring it up, I'm deeply pained for those who are raped. Men are supposed to be society's, and women's, protectors and defenders. Look at what we've become. A bunch of hump-happy juvenile delinquents in men's bodies. But the baby conceived in rape bears no responsibility for the circumstances of his creation. He (or she) deserves the full protection and love of at least one parent, if not both (I know, fat chance).

With everything a woman stands to lose, why would she ever consent to sex outside of marriage? I'm surrounded by men who live with their girlfriends, yet appear to be constantly on the prowl.

Don't get me started on the state of marriage.

Oh, so its all the woman's fault if she gets pregnant, non? What about the man? Where are his responsibilities here? Or are you one of those who think women are walking wombs for the taking of men? And btw, if you think that I would have carried the fetus that my grandfather impregnated me with, you can collectively...well, use your imagination there.

 

[JoStories]

Don't bother with your simpering attempt at feigning sympathy for victims of rape. Please. As a survivor I find it insulting. Sorry that's just how I feel.

Forcing a raped woman to bring a baby to term against her will does nothing but cause harm to both of them. The stress the psychological detrimental affects. It's all very well to pontificate "oh won't somebody think of the children?" When you ignore the actual proven affects this has on the woman. The pro life crowd like to claim they speak on behalf of those that can't and then turn around and abjectly refuse to speak on behalf of victims of rape. Like it baffles me. Do you guys even give a damn about the woman? Or is she supposed to be some breeding mare?

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!! Standing ovation!!

 

[BenTheBeliever]

All I can say about abortion is this not everything has a right or wrong answer I am pro life. But if a woman is raped I can't just stand by and make her keep the baby.

 

[Marisa]

The Bible consistently describes the sins of man.

By your logic, because the bible describes how Cain murdered Abel, God clearly has no aversion to murder.

As to your earlier assertion, that one must prove that God exists: if you have not studied the bible (history, archaeology, consistency, prophecy), then my assertion will fall flat: the evidence is compelling that He exists, and is as described.

If I am wrong, then I lose nothing in death. If you are wrong, you face eternal suffering in death.

You're very correct, the god described in the bible has no particular aversion to many types of killing. He engages in murder, outright slaughter actually, himself repeatedly AND orders his "chosen" people to slaughter in his name. I know this because I have, in fact, studied the bible. What a condescending thing to say, to suggest I haven't. Do you know me? You feel you can make such safe assumptions based on . . . . what? That I have a different opinion of gods who slaughter?

ETA: Pascal's Wager? How very . . . cute. There are more than 3,000 gods to choose from. Since they all share an equal amount of "proof" as the Abrahamic god, I sure hope you guessed right. Or had the good fortune to be born into the correctly indoctrinated version of that god.

 

[Marisa]

Do not deceive yourself. Laws are based on morals.

No, laws are based on rights.

 

[Marisa]

How about the presumption of responsibility? It's no surprise where babies come from. If a woman wants to be sexually active, she should recognize that birth control isn't 100% effective. If you aren't ready to have a baby, why are you having sex?

How about the presumption that women's purpose is to breed? That's where your opinion is actually coming from. Are you honest enough to admit that?

I swear, people are so incredibly self-centered, and painfully selfish, it would make me physically I'll if I weren't so myself.

I wonder how this applies to people who feel free to impose their morality on others? Are those people "incredibly self centered" or "painfully selfish"?

And before you bring it up, I'm deeply pained for those who are raped. Men are supposed to be society's, and women's, protectors and defenders. Look at what we've become. A bunch of hump-happy juvenile delinquents in men's bodies. But the baby conceived in rape bears no responsibility for the circumstances of his creation. He (or she) deserves the full protection and love of at least one parent, if not both (I know, fat chance).

I'm not a rape survivor myself, but statistically speaking more than one has read this incredibly offensive statement of yours.

With everything a woman stands to lose, why would she ever consent to sex outside of marriage? I'm surrounded by men who live with their girlfriends, yet appear to be constantly on the prowl.

So, a woman does exist without a man. That's quite a misogynistic opinion. For your edification, my daughter's purpose is not to breed the next generation of misogynists, and I've taught her as much.

Don't get me started on the state of marriage.

I would be willing to bet money that few people are actually interested in your opinion.