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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That is not true thought even if it was is it anything but a compliment. Truth is exclusive therefor religious views should be as well. Is not the intentional killing of a 1 day old infinite (as even secular people believe, at least for now) also an absolute. That is just two of the many ways your claim here is inaccurate. Baha'i for example is a religion that believes all religions are true. Anyway my side is the one that admits the ignorance inherent to the issue and errs for life. Your side is the one that either claims to know what it can't, establishes life and death lines based on that which it can't know, and declares murder before that arbitrary unknown point ok,, and errs on the side of death. Until someone knows where this imaginary boundary is that is indefensible.
Whatever took place in evolution at the time the first human appeared is also unknown as you admit. If we had to make life and death decision based on that point then I would also err on the side of life and not omnisciently claim I know where any line is. Your side must know where the line is and can't, mine allows for that ignorance. On a side note Adam is believed to be the first primate with a soul even if humans lived before him.
That is not true. One day before would be murder however one day after conception is no less murder unless you redefine the term by some arbitrary means. It is the taking of human life even at that point. However we are discussing lines as they exist and they exist a long time after conception. Why? Who redefined murder to be that exact time? Why is it only murder if pain can be felt? Why is it only murder if consciousness exists? Redefining murder by arbitrary means makes nothing less or more moral. I could say it isn't murder until puberty if I wished but that has no effect on whether it actually is. This is why untethering morality from it's transcendent foundations is so dangerous as it then can be tethered to anywhere a fallible, corrupt, and finite wishes to for convenience. It is no longer moral at that point.
That is like saying that if you do not declare bestiality legal those that practice it might rob someone. There are tens of thousands (probably tens of millions) of women who had an abortion who regret it and are suffering for their decision so there is a far greater cost by allowing it than not, however we do not legalize cocaine because they will make it by other means if we do. This is a rationalization not an argument.
Your rationalizing again. That was not the reason alcohol was made illegal or made legal again. By your rationale we could not make anything illegal if even the potential for it being done in other ways existed. Maybe we should legalize murder because a few of them might burn down a forest instead. Things are wrong or right regardless of their solutions.
Oh come off it. I told the other poster that they were rationalizing but you are off the chart. The accidental death of a fetus is not the moral responsibility of the Mother. The intentional taking on innocent human life is.
The logic or lack there of in your reasoning baffles me. If you practiced my view the human race would be added to by a billion lives, if we did what you have for some strange reason linked with that the human race would no longer exist. Nice equality you got there. I do not think a single equivalent aspect between the two exists even in theory. When your side finally takes over, up will mean down and left will mean hot dog. 1984^2
How hypocritical. It is up to the individual unless that individual is the one being killed. I can't imagine a clearer or more diabolical case of hypocrisy even theoretically possible.
It's just as much the moral responsibility of the parents as any other foreseeable circumstance.
Why would that be bad, in your view?
No, ideas will just be applied consistently. If you care about the well-being of fetuses, then you would want to prevent the thing that puts them in the most danger: pregnancy.
Hello 9-10ths. You are normally in my opinion, wrong but fairly rational however this issue seems to have warped your thinking. There is no moral liability for medical issues outside a parents control. No one come to arrest the parents if they miscarry unless proof of intentionally causing it exists.
Are you trying to say that once a few miscarriages occur it is immoral to attempt to have a baby? I have not the slightest idea what your trying so hard to say here.
It went from bad to worse which is quite remarkable. Are you saying that an act to stifle or attempt to stifle God's grand plan should not be viewed as bad in my view? So now the non-theist who suggests they should be allowed to participate in the world wide moral debate not only can't conclude that a billion human lives ended in the womb is not wrong but is asking what is so wrong with the human race committing genetic suicide? I rest my case.
Since pregnancy results in well over 90% success rates apart from what abortion advocates introduce into the equation and the human race depends on them, we have more than enough justification to continue to allow them. Have you got to the point that to prove a very very bad point you will claim that the extinction of the human race is better than less than 5% miscarriages. That a billion future babies should be negated so that no deaths in the womb occur and to top that off it is coming from a person that supports abortion. There must be a half dozen self contradicting issue in all that.
Are you simply arbitrarily declaring autonomy to be what makes the difference between murder and not-murder? Why? A human life is a life regardless of where it is at. The baby didn't place it's self there.
What the heck are you talking about? I will not have a conversation that is consistently this crude but have no idea what your talking about anyway.
You are having a different conversation than I am (it seems to be more of an emotional rant than a debate) but I do agree that men are just as wrong (or more so as they are the aggressors normally) when it comes to irresponsible sexual conduct and if legislation existed that made their cost for irresponsibility higher I would vote for it. Maybe you can answer something I have wondered. Since women bear the overwhelming cost of unwanted pregnancies why are there so many willing to have sex so easily. It is easy to see (though no more excusable) that the man who can run off is less cautious, but the women are no more cautious even though they may be stuck with all kinds of burdens. Since you had already taken an intellectual off ramp I thought I could at least ask that question but I do not intend to stay in the slums you off ramp led to.
You can't redefine terms to make the life your taking any less valuable than any other persons. Like I said maybe your right but maybe your wrong. My view is to err for life.
You complain that men get away without having a burden then in the next breath pronounce a death sentence on the life created by the women's actions without consulting the person being killed. That is inconsistent. You nor I can possibly know the actual nature and status of the taking of human life in the womb but I am erring for life and you for death based on convenience and the avoiding of the consequences for a couples actions. Redefining terms changes nothing. The wreck-less arrogance to do so anyway and claim it does is chilling. Women do not suffer trauma, life long depression, and terrible regret from having a tumor removed but thousand upon thousands do after planned parenthood talks 90% of them into having abortions so they may continue to get their government subsidies. It is very easy to prevent the issue from occurring at all and countless women manage it every day. Getting past your emotionally based protests there exists no rational argument for taking almost a billion human lives so far, as a form of contraception. For the women's health I am more than in favor of it and yes men get away with irresponsibility in this case but that, unlike abortion is not under discussion.
Yet you rely heavily on doing just that...
Actually, they wouldn't even be arrested for an intentional miscarriage, since (in your country and mine, at least), the law presumes that a fetus is not a person.
I'm saying that every pregnancy carries a significant risk of miscarriage, so if a fetus is a person, then trying to conceive is unethical by any normal standard.
Wait... are you saying that you have a duty to God to have children yourself? Exactly how many children has God commanded you to have?
What I'm saying is that if you were really interested in preventing dead fetuses, then you'd avoid the leading causes of dead fetuses: pregnancy itself.
I think your numbers are off by close to an order of magnitude, but regardless: when there's a 1 in 20 chance that a child will die in the course of something that nobody needs to do, this is an acceptable risk.
I'm not advocating an anti-abortion position; I'm saying that it's inconsistent.
Who gets to define "good"?
For the purposes of my argument here, 1robin can define it however he likes as long as he's consistent. I'm arguing that he's not consistent.
Fair enough.
I was discussing morality and not legality, nor are intentional miscarriages popular or even the subject.
That is an unnecessary distinction. I do not care at what point anything is declared a fetus. My claims concern that Birth is not the line and wherever the line is drawn by arbitrary means as it exists today is no based on anything binding. So the safe and moral course is not to wager the life on the innocent on a line defined by arbitrary means.
Give me an example of one of those "normal" standards. An actually good standard is not to take an action that would potentially cause great harm or loss of life that does not have compensating good benefits to justify it. The risk of miscarriage has that compensating benefit, abortion does not in more than 95% of cases. Where it does (as in the risk to a women's life) I am consistent and for it. The lengths that a proponent will go to in order to defend killing human life is only exceeded by the lack of justifying motivation to attempt it. Are we really at that point where death is now good? Some progress.
No, I thought the fact I never mentioned me or any individual would have prevented this statement you made. I said that God intends for humanity to reach a natural (or supernatural) terminus. Off course a reasonable case can be made that arguments for killing human life in the womb is part of the darkness that precedes the end.
That is an absurd argument. The 95% chance (or whatever the stats are) of successful births are more than justifying compensation for risking the 5% that do not. The one thing that has no justification is either terminating the human race or terminating a significant portion (it's most innocent portion) of it without even a hint of compensating gain.
I guess your are now arguing that continuing the human race is not needed. I tell you what if we have reached that point maybe it isn't. There are bad arguments and then way below that is this thing.
Given then adoption of your argument and no children would exist anywhere. Your side would finally have done the entire race in and went into oblivion singing their own praises for rationalizing racial suicide I guess.
I am lost here. Are you under the impression I thought we were on the same side?
Even if you could find a flaw in my reasoning (and you yet to have done so) it would be dwarfed by the fact your reasoning kills off the entire race. Good night nurse. Let me add a little detail.
Two possibilities. Either God or every human on Earth can have an equally valid opinion without the slightest way to determine who is right.
When you talk about arresting people, you're talking about the law.
Setting the line at birth is not arbitrary. Setting the line at conception is.
That it's bad to put children's lives at risk unnecessarily.
Actually, I think your position is the one that devalues life.
Okay - so you don't have an obligation to have kids. That's fine - so we're back where we started: if we assume that the fetus/embryo is a person from the moment of conception, then pregnancy creates a needless risk of the death of a child.
It's quite a bit higher than 5%. Here are one set of stats:
The Truth About Your Top 10 Pregnancy Worries - Fit Pregnancy
So you don't consider avoiding the needless deaths of children to be a "compensating gain"?
I like the human race fine; I just question whether it would be worth continuing if the cost was billions of innocent children's lives. Now... I don't believe that fetuses are children, but if you do, then this is something you need to think long and hard about.
Again, you're misunderstanding. I don't want to end the human race. First off, even if all the anti-choicers stopped breeding, there would be plenty of people to keep having kids. Second, what I'm doing is presenting a conflict in your position; there are actually two ways to resolve it:
Not surprising.
No, but your arguments seemed to suggest that you thought I was actually arguing that anti-choicers not breed. I thought I should clarify that my actual position is different: that the fact that they do breed shows them to not be as "pro-life" as they claim to be, if they really do believe what they say they do.
What reasoning?
Well, no. Again:
Ingledsva said:
Ingledsva said:
