Cooky
Veteran Member
Again, using non-humans as an example of what is natural or not, for our understanding, is illogical.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Elective surgery is banned unless... it is for abortion
- Thread starter Shaul
- Start date
Again, using non-humans as an example of what is natural or not, for our understanding, is illogical.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
That's quite sad, because thinking logically over emotionally and seeing statistics and numbers before emotions is common with Aspies. We aren't being judgemental, and we certainly don't lack compassion, but ultimately numbers we know are real. Which is how I have more compassion because I'm not saying "look at me." I'm saying look at everyone. I know the numbers favor my claim. Myself, I'm able to keep climbing a ladder upwards. Not everyone is that fortunate.
And, if I didn't see my concerned about numbers, I wouldn't see the current risk posed to the elderly due to the virus and population as a whole due to over stressing the medical system. It's why I go on about people other than themselves paying for the consequences. It's because of statistics and putting the pieces together into a larger picture.
McBell
Unbound
Only because you have rendered the word natural worthless.
The fact of the matter is that your position is really nothing more than what you think is positive or negative.
You are only using the word natural to make your position appear to be more than it actually is.
McBell
Unbound
not natural
Cooky
Veteran Member
We can't underestimate our ability to influence the environment and the experiences of those around us by what we do and say. It's all a complex spiderweb of information sharing that can only come from nature. Where else it might come from, I have no idea.
Here, lemme explain this.
Unlike animals in general, humans have the capability of abstract thought. We can look at a map and recognize that it's not the territory, but information useful in navigating the territory. Those are different things, and a dog or a chimp wouldn't be able to grasp the difference.
Feel free to explain this to the people who think my marriage is wrong because it's unnatural.
Maybe the reason I'm responding to your assertions the way I am is because so many people, for my entire adult life, have used terms like "natural" and "God says..." as weapons against me. But when I expect them to explain what they mean by the terms they waffle around. They do what you just did. They redefine the terms to mean "What I like and prefer to believe."
I find that sort of dishonest semantics extremely irritating. It demonstrates to me that Christians don't really know anything about ethics or supernatural entities like God than I do.
Tom
Cooky
Veteran Member
That does make sense. This is a difficult post to respond to. I'll have to take more time to consider this.
Well, and I do think men should be involved in the discussion, don’t get me wrong here.
What “feels wrong” to me is having people without wombs “having a vote” on what people do with their wombs, if you get me?
By all means discuss the issues. But the reality is, you don’t know what it is like to be pregnant, that is simply an abstract thing for you.
But it’s not that way for people with wombs.
You need my explicit consent to take even a drop of my blood, even if not doing so kills other people. I don’t see why that should be different for a womb.
So you experienced morning sickness, did you? Did your breasts change? Did your body change?
By all means, discuss the issues with your significant other, provided you are there to step up if she needs you. But I’m sorry, I place higher weight on her bodily autonomy than anything else. If a woman (cis or trans, or you know anyone with a womb) chooses to go through with her pregnancy, with or without the other party involved, awesome. More power to her. If she didn’t, I can only hope she has emotional support from people around her. Including the other party involved. That’s where I’m at. I’m sorry, that’s just my opinion.
But you know, I’m at best ambivalent about people without wombs weighing in on discussions of abortion. I’m not saying they should be excluded, it’s just I don’t know. It’s like me discussing the impacts of prostate cancer. How the hell would I know about that? I can empathise, but that’s as far as I can logically go.
Last edited:
Is that what you consider the most important aspect of parenthood?
No. I didn't. Neither did she.
Does it matter that neither of us had morning sickness?
Tom
It’s great that you were supportive, that is the best case scenario. Which is not what happens in all scenarios, unfortunately.
Perhaps I’m not phrasing this correctly.
The most important aspect of a pregnancy for me is consent. Which I believe can be taken away at any time before the third trimester. Maybe up to the second, I’m still trying to find my “line in the sand.”
After that then a termination should be a medically necessary one. Because like it or not, the person with the womb has to deal with the biological reality on top of the reality of parenthood. The one who doesn’t can only be there for emotional support until birth. And I don’t want those people to be excluded, I just don’t think they should get the ultimate say. That is up to the person with the womb. Again that’s just where I’m personally at.
Why? Humans hunt and eat other animals. We often use unnatural means. Unless you are going to argument that arrows and guns are found in nature.
Cooky
Veteran Member
Where else would they be from?
I have never seen them dug from the ground or harvested from fields and orchards. What is this natural source for arrows and guns?
Under your expanded definition of natural, abortion becomes natural and refuted your position that it is unnatural. Since now everything that man does is natural and thus positive as you have claimed.
Cooky
Veteran Member
Are you suggesting it's supernatural? I wasn't planning to go there.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, I am not. But expanding the definition to include man made items and actions turns abortions into natural acts. Again your conclusion of natural and unnatural are purely subjective with little application in convincing others that do not already agree with you for any reason. You are placing yourself as the standard for determination. Do you believe you hold such a lofty position?
Cooky
Veteran Member
The perceived flaw in that particular argument revolves around time, not me, in that whatever outcome becomes the final position after all disagreements are surrendered, in the end, will be the truly natural position.
In the meantime, I struggle with abortion not being a product of love... Therefore it's not "positive"... So I don't know how it can be resolved until abortion is proven to be an act of love and positivity.
...But I don't debate micro-concepts (personal experiences). I let other people do that, and I watch. I'm a 'big picture' guy.
Nobody is pro-abortion. What we are is pro-choice, and the choice referred to is the mother's. We are no in favor of the choice being the church's. The moral question for me is not whether terminating an early-term pregnancy is immoral, but whether it should be illegal, that is, who decides if this pregnancy goes to term - the pregnant woman or the church.
To rephrase that, do I prefer that women be empowered to choose, or do I think that the church should use the state to enforce its desire to make her an incubator against her will. This is akin to whether I think she should be a citizen or a subject.
But that isn't the same as being pro-abortion. I have no opinion on whether any woman contemplating an abortion should have one or not. That's not pro-abortion. That's pro-choice.
And what term do you suppose is the opposite of pro-choice. It's not pro-life, which is the opposite of anti-life. People that oppose legal abortion are against the idea of a woman having a choice. They are anti-choice, a term people don't generally want to be called, since it sounds like anti-freedom.
But isn't that what it is?
To borrow from the pen of the poet (with modification), freedom's just another word for something else to choose.
And in somebody else's view, recriminalizing abortion would be an intrusion on life.
I think that you would be well served to note that what you are saying in essence is that you would impose your moral preferences on others, something not being done to you at this time. Nobody is forcing abortion on you and your family, but you would force them to have an unwanted baby.
If you consider that fair, perhaps you would be willing to have them impose their moral preferences on you? Maybe they don't consider your church a moral institution, want you to stop going there, and would like to criminalize church-going to use the power of the state to enforce their religious opinions on you.
I think that if you can conceive of this issue in this way, you can transcend the idea of either of you imposing his moral values on the other and choose freedom and autonomy for you both.
I'm guessing that you two had a strong moral sense and work ethic, and probably had emotional and financial support to allow you to eventually earn a good living.
But how about if you are a poor, pregnant teenager with no expectation of their being a man around to help support and raise the baby, who will need to devote herself entirely to supporting herself and the baby with whatever unskilled work she can get, never having that chance to prepare herself for a professional career? She has much less chance to follow your path than you did even if she is willing to work hard, because that work will be waiting tables, serving fast food, or worse, prostitution or selling drugs as a young mother.
Let her have an abortion if she wants one, and help her pay for it and an education if necessary.
Please think about that. There may come a time when the world is overpopulated such that it is necessary to impose population control. There may be a moral issue in the future concerning whether women are allowed to have that second or third baby, and how to handle those with one pregnancy too many. They may decide the opposite of what you did - their choice may be to deny your right (more likely your great grand-daughter's) to not have an abortion.
If that's OK with you, then you needn't reconsider your position. If it's not, perhaps you should.
No she didn't. She prefers to make decisions that will affect large numbers of people with information about those people and how those changes will affect them using studies that look at large numbers of people. The results are statistics. Caring about and using statistics to good effect is not denying one's conscience. It's the opposite.
I think I can help you with this natural quandary. Others have asked you for a clear definition of natural, and if you gave one, I missed it.
They have also told you why natural and not natural are irrelevant to moral decisions however you define them unless you define them like you have - what you like and find morally acceptable, and what you disapprove of. That's not a useful way to use the word natural.
The commonest application of the word natural is to processes that occur without intention or design. Thus satellites orbiting earth that were not put there (the moon) are natural satellites, whereas those used in GPS systems are artificial satellites.
When we saw a face on Mars, the question was whether it was a natural formation or some artifice.
When we detected pulsars sending hyper-regular signals toward earth, the question was whether that was due to a natural phenomenon or a sign of extraterrestial intelligence (artifice).
In every case, the difference between natural and unnatural was intelligence.
It might be unclear whether we should call a beaver building a dam natural or artificial. The process is not due to blind forces of nature such as those that might build a sand dune. It's common to consider the act of building it natural. You might see it on a nature show. But this is clearly intelligent design - intention, purpose. That would be a slightly different understanding of the word when we allow the artifacts non-human intelligence to be called natural.
A related use of the word is as used in The Natural, or "You make me feel like a natural woman." It's a metaphorical use intended to mean something that is or happens without much effort or design. The Natural was a great ahtlete without much artifice - training - and the natural woman is who she is without much effort or artifice (this is a second meaning of that word, more akin to deceit).
And another meaning for natural is the opposite of supernatural. By this reckoning, everything that happens in this universe including human artifice is natural.
You seem to be conflating a couple of these ideas leading to equivocation fallacies when you call everything that man does and ever will do natural, but then saying that therapeutic abortion is wrong because it isn't natural (spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage, is natural by all definitions).
I would recommend trying to get a clear understanding of what you mean when you use these words, and using them consistently.
Yes, but perhaps there is a second point - don't gather in closed spaces with other people for prolonged periods of time doing something you can do just as well in six or twelve months. We just cancelled a home improvement project, since it can wait (elective), and why be with a construction crew in your home now? This is analogous.
Regarding elective surgery, if the surgery requires general anesthesia, as with a hip replacement, it will require a ventilator. Surgery done with local anesthesia such as the excision of a skin lesion, doesn't compete with those needing ventilators, but it might compete with those who need hospitalizaton and a hospital bed.
Well said. Somehow, advertisers made natural into a purely positive word, like organic. Arsenic is natural. Hemlock is organic.
It is crucial to me as well. But what many people leave out of that "consent" aspect of the issue is that the parents consented to a choice well understood to be "where babies come from". "Penis in Vagina" sex is how procreation happens. If the mother doesn't have a choice it's a crime called rape. If she does, it's just potentially fertile sex.
There's lots of other kinds of sex. Nobody is required "abstinence". But abstaining from PiV sex is a 100% guaranteed, available, free from payment and side effects, form of birth control. Choosing not to use it is a choice.
Choosing to have PiV sex comes with responsibility. Unique responsibility, because pregnancy is a unique situation. All else being equal, PiV sex is about the only way for a couple of humans to involve another human, one who doesn't even exist at the time of the Choice much less give consent. One who is utterly dependent upon one particular human being for everything, for about 9 months.
There just isn't another comparable circumstance in the human situation. So none of the other moral guidelines quite fit. Oftentimes people compare pregnancy to a forced organ "donation". I don't see them as particularly comparable, unless the donor chose something resulting in the need for the organ and is the only possible donor. What I see as far more comparable is the "implied consent" of a motorist starting their car. If they hit a pedestrian, they owe that victim a ton. They aren't expected to personally get them to hospital, treat their injuries, or cover for them at work. Not because it isn't their responsibility, it is. But there are professionals who are far better able, all the motorist is expected to do is pay.
And pay.
And if it's inconvenient to pay, because you forgot to get insurance or something, society is going to seize your assets and garnish your paycheck and whatever for as long as it takes. Because you don't have a right to drive unless you're willing and able to take responsibility for the foreseeable outcomes. You cannot UnChoose the outcome of your choice because you didn't want it and it's inconvenient.
Same with sex. Nobody has a right to sex. But serious consequences of choosing it are very well known.
Tom