Abortion

[adherent]

So, do you think abortion is okay?

[canadianhorsefan]

I think it depends. I believe that abortion is bad when the baby has a soul, in other words, the time Allah chooses if we are male or female, and breathes our souls into us. Before that, we have no soul, so, it it like killing a stone. Doesn't really make sense, does it?

canadianhorsefan

[Crixus]

Heaven is the direction for which we should be aiming. If our actions place us in heaven, then it's an ends with a completely justified means, approved by God, otherwise he would not have us there.

Certainly heaven should be the direction we are aiming, however my intent was that heaven should not be the purpose behind our direction. Rather, that purpose should come from the love of God and desire to serve him. It is a safe assumption that if we are received into heaven, that God has accepted our actions on earth, and has approved of our company. It is though an entirely separate matter when discussing, on earth, the way to get into heaven. If one takes the approach that God is but the gatekeeper to our rightful eternity, and thereby one should do whatever he deems necessary, but no more than is needed to arrive there, then I doubt if any of their actions hold merit. And this is, to me what, your statement resembled.

Why is life, finite pleasures and pains, better than heaven, an existence of perpetual happiness, and why is it worth saving a life if it could come at the cost of losing salvation?

Life is by many believed to be a gift, and in accord with that we should ensure that each person given this gift by God, be secured the full entitlement of that gift. Who are we to take away what God has given to our peers? It would be vanity to assume that because we can defy God's will, that we have the justification to do so.

I do not believe the situations are exactly equal. In the case of rape, the victim has an act imposed on them against their will, which brings grief and suffering. In the case of abortion, the only one to suffer is the father, mother, or transgressor. If the baby suffers, it is temporary, and if it loses its life, it cannot miss something of which it may not have been aware.

The situations of course aren't entirely equal, but it was the logic that I found comparable. You seem to imply that because the suffering is followed by swift destruction it does not warrant the same sympathy as an affliction that is survived. I believe though that the worst tragedies are those not survived. No matter how temporary the prior suffering may have been, the worst offense that we can bring against another is to end the time they have on earth.

Whether or not the child is keenly aware of its existence at present, if we are to assume that the child's spirit reaches heaven, then we could assume that endless entity that dwelt within the child will become aware of its loss.

As you showed clearly here:

To my knowledge euthanasia and do not resuscitate orders, are directives which must be issued of ones own volition. Excepting cases where a person may be incapable of issuing any decisions about their medical treatment for an indefinite period. It seems to me, that you are advocating these decisions be made perhaps against the will of the affected, implicit in which is the creation of a hierarchical order within the family.

...you understand will is something to be considered when a person's life is taken. So what then happens when there's no will?

It could only be an assumption that the child has no will, because it is at the time unable to display its possession or lack thereof. However it is certain, if left to natural process, they will make their will manifest.

If he has a purpose then nothing can make him err in realising his plan, since he knew the outcome when he first breathed life into man. If our impermanent lives here hold a purpose, then so does out habitation in heaven, since if it had no purpose, we would never be there.

I don't believe that God had a plan for man other than coexistence in the universe. God gave man free will, the ability to contradict Him, and so I cannot believe that we are being railroaded into our actions, nor that we can derail his plan, because if He had created a plan that our actions could impact then this plan, by dependence upon our actions, would imply that free will is an illusion.

Yet, simply because we cannot destroy his plan by our actions should not absolve us of crimes against each other. Nor should Christians ignore those crimes that men commit against other men.

[Crixus]

The structure of a family does not have to be underlaid by a a hierarchy. It can subsist through values and standards. Each family discusses openly and objectively what exact conditions make a life worth living or not living - both for themselves and for their loved ones. In the areas where a consensus can be reached, those standards set the bar for that family or community.

Still I question why a person should not be allowed to make the choice for them self, assuming they have not become permanently, or indefinitely incapable.

Euthanasia cannot be a directive that is issued of one's own volition. The child in question typically would not be old enough to make such a decision.

Assuming the child is being aborted, this is not euthanizing. Euthanasia involves killing to relieve the person of a painful existence. Abortion is not employed to bring mercy to the person being terminated.

I do not believe that someone forfeits their right to existence because they are temporarily incoherent to the rest of the world. So being too young to communicate, in my opinion, does not validate their destruction. If the purpose of the abortion is because the child would live with extreme pain or disability then perhaps it would be best to leave the decision of life or death up to the parents, otherwise I can see no reason to even consider abortion.

If the loved one is able to make decisions and make those decisions known, the loved one's opinion should carry great weight with the rest of the family. That's part of treating someone as an end and not a means to an end. Any person who chooses to remain in suffering or chooses to live a life substandard from the rest of the world chooses that path on his own. It should not be chosen for him. That, to me, seems hierarchical - almost like sentencing.

I agree, people should make the choice of life themselves, and it should never be forced on them, but I can't see why the choice of death should ever be made for them.

Yes, people should be able to impose their will upon others only when those people are the people who love the person in question. If he is not loved by family, than why go on living anyway?

Well, I have known a few people not loved by their families, and I don't think it would be fair to eliminate them upon their family's decree. This turns families into self-contained tyrannies; I don't think I would want to live in such a world.

[perspective]

Still I question why a person should not be allowed to make the choice for them self, assuming they have not become permanently, or indefinitely incapable.

Of course we are talking about circumstances that would be different for all people. In my particular family, the choice would only be made for the person in rare circumstances. However, in another family, who places less value on life, the circumstances where death is chosen might be more abundant.

Euthanasia cannot be a directive that is issued of one's own volition. The child in question typically would not be old enough to make such a decision.

Assuming the child is being aborted, this is not euthanizing.

True. Killing a just-born child is traditionally thought of as euthanasia. We tend to call other forms of euthanasia "assisted suicide" or "do no resuscitate".

Euthanasia involves killing to relieve the person of a painful existence. Abortion is not employed to bring mercy to the person being terminated.

Abortion can be employed to bring mercy to the person being terminated. This is a motivating factor for many abortions.

I do not believe that someone forfeits their right to existence because they are temporarily incoherent to the rest of the world. So being too young to communicate, in my opinion, does not validate their destruction.

To some families, this is a stance they would take. Our family would take this stance. A person would not be euthanized simply because they were not capable of making their wishes known. In our family, a person who would make his wishes known, but who knows not or understands not all the circumstances surrounding his wish, his opinion would not be considered with as much weight as those who could completely grasp all the implications of each option.

If the purpose of the abortion is because the child would live with extreme pain or disability then perhaps it would be best to leave the decision of life or death up to the parents, otherwise I can see no reason to even consider abortion.

I agree that parents/family should make the decision. Our family would only make that decision in the circumstance like you said - treating the child as an end and not a means to an end.

I agree, people should make the choice of life themselves, and it should never be forced on them, but I can't see why the choice of death should ever be made for them.

I think making someone choose to die or live with pain is a horrible option to leave someone you love. Once that person has tasted the sweet things life has to offer, they'll be torn between suffering and survival. Not only the person suffering, but the family who loves him. A person may not ever come to the mental capacity to decide that life is not what they want. In those circumstances, for our particular family, death is chosen. For those who believe in reincarnation and heaven and such, this is not a punishment but a blessing.

Well, I have known a few people not loved by their families, and I don't think it would be fair to eliminate them upon their family's decree. This turns families into self-contained tyrannies; I don't think I would want to live in such a world.

Well I would not want to live in a world where such a high value is placed upon life that the value of life suffers. It's not necessary to be paranoid of death, especially if you believe in life after death. And if you can't trust your family to do what is right by you, that family should not be allowed to reproduce anyway. If they won't do right by their own, they won't do right by the rest of humanity either. It's sort of a self-cleansing of humanity.


But with that...I'm going to start a new thread about The Value of Life because I think that this thread is moving slightly off topic.

The topic to debate here:
So, do you think abortion is okay?

My opinion is, of course, yes abortion is okay. But, adherent, you might want to be more specific about what you mean by "okay". Do you mean "acceptable"? "moral"? "healthy"? "okay" can have many meanings.

[Corvus]

Heaven is the direction for which we should be aiming. If our actions place us in heaven, then it's an ends with a completely justified means, approved by God, otherwise he would not have us there.

Certainly heaven should be the direction we are aiming, however my intent was that heaven should not be the purpose behind our direction. Rather, that purpose should come from the love of God and desire to serve him. It is a safe assumption that if we are received into heaven, that God has accepted our actions on earth, and has approved of our company. It is though an entirely separate matter when discussing, on earth, the way to get into heaven. If one takes the approach that God is but the gatekeeper to our rightful eternity, and thereby one should do whatever he deems necessary, but no more than is needed to arrive there, then I doubt if any of their actions hold merit. And this is, to me what, your statement resembled.

Then anyone practising this "Christian Nihilism" would be going to hell? I really don't see why. If you have reached the age of accountability, there is only one way through God, and it's through Christ. I don't see how this is conditional.

Why is life, finite pleasures and pains, better than heaven, an existence of perpetual happiness, and why is it worth saving a life if it could come at the cost of losing salvation?

Life is by many believed to be a gift, and in accord with that we should ensure that each person given this gift by God, be secured the full entitlement of that gift. Who are we to take away what God has given to our peers?

Are you a vegetarian, Crixius?

It would be vanity to assume that because we can defy God's will, that we have the justification to do so.

And I think it vanity to assume that we know God's will.

I do not believe the situations are exactly equal. In the case of rape, the victim has an act imposed on them against their will, which brings grief and suffering. In the case of abortion, the only one to suffer is the father, mother, or transgressor. If the baby suffers, it is temporary, and if it loses its life, it cannot miss something of which it may not have been aware.

The situations of course aren't entirely equal, but it was the logic that I found comparable. You seem to imply that because the suffering is followed by swift destruction it does not warrant the same sympathy as an affliction that is survived.

No, the suffering, which may be experienced by the foetus/baby/child/ is one which they may not be aware. It is the suffering of something that is only biologically alive. And if we had a medical procedure that did not occassion any suffering? I am certain that we could devise something like this and thereby entirely avoid the question of suffering.

Whether or not the child is keenly aware of its existence at present, if we are to assume that the child's spirit reaches heaven, then we could assume that endless entity that dwelt within the child will become aware of its loss.

And loss and suffering is felt even unto heaven? If yes, I am uncertain of the dissimilarity between heaven and earth. Only heaven seems to last a lot longer. After all, every soul in heaven once was in possession of a life, at least half would not have lived to a ripe old age. They must all have regrets if regret is felt.

It could only be an assumption that the child has no will, because it is at the time unable to display its possession or lack thereof. However it is certain, if left to natural process, they will make their will manifest.

Or they will manifest a will, which not the same. Does a child have a will at the moment of conception? I do not believe that one can possess a will without the necessary parts and if you believe that will is something tied up with soul, then I cannot argue this any more than you can prove it, so I will leave it be.

If he has a purpose then nothing can make him err in realising his plan, since he knew the outcome when he first breathed life into man. If our impermanent lives here hold a purpose, then so does out habitation in heaven, since if it had no purpose, we would never be there.

I don't believe that God had a plan for man other than coexistence in the universe. God gave man free will, the ability to contradict Him, and so I cannot believe that we are being railroaded into our actions, nor that we can derail his plan, because if He had created a plan that our actions could impact then this plan, by dependence upon our actions, would imply that free will is an illusion.

Yet, simply because we cannot destroy his plan by our actions should not absolve us of crimes against each other. Nor should Christians ignore those crimes that men commit against other men.

But why? There is only one being with the authority to pass judgement on men, and if we can die with a completely clear conscience and be with him, what then is the problem?

[Crixus]

Abortion can be employed to bring mercy to the person being terminated. This is a motivating factor for many abortions.

True, I should have stated that it is an infrequent reason for abortion.

But with that...I'm going to start a new thread about The Value of Life because I think that this thread is moving slightly off topic.

Agreed, I'll post the rest of my reply there.

[Crixus]

Then anyone practising this "Christian Nihilism" would be going to hell? I really don't see why. If you have reached the age of accountability, there is only one way through God, and it's through Christ. I don't see how this is conditional.

I don't think coming to God through Christ is conditional, but I do question whether one can truly come to Christ through seeking only reward. Because I believe intent is the measure of an action, then I am brought to the assumption that one's quest for heaven must come from a desire to serve God and not a desire to serve one's self.

Are you a vegetarian, Crixius?

I consider the earth's other mortal residents to be neither peers nor persons, so were I a vegetarian it would not be due to a crisis of conscience. I do however believe that undue suffering should never be inflicted upon other creatures.

And I think it vanity to assume that we know God's will.

I think that this is one area where we may fundamentally part company.

I am under the assumption that you are an agnostic, of one sort or another, by examining your user groups, and so I am under the assumption as well that you believe that if a divine creator exists, it is incomprehensible to man. I hold the same to be true, however I believe that any all-knowing, and all-powerful deity would be quite capable of making its will known, even to a creature such as man. Because of our flawed nature were are certainly quite prone to misinterpreting God's will, however, believing as I do that life can only be apportioned by God, it is my conclusion that for a man to take life from that which man has not been granted dominion over, is to defy the will of God.

No, the suffering, which may be experienced by the foetus/baby/child/ is one which they may not be aware. It is the suffering of something that is only biologically alive. And if we had a medical procedure that did not occassion any suffering? I am certain that we could devise something like this and thereby entirely avoid the question of suffering.

As I stated previously, it is my belief that regardless how temporary the prior suffering, the worst offense that we can bring against another is to end the time they have on earth. Therefore the crime is hardly diminished by easing the pain of the one to be murdered.

And loss and suffering is felt even unto heaven? If yes, I am uncertain of the dissimilarity between heaven and earth. Only heaven seems to last a lot longer. After all, every soul in heaven once was in possession of a life, at least half would not have lived to a ripe old age. They must all have regrets if regret is felt.

I believe that one is certainly aware of that which in life was striped of them, though I do not see that it would cause suffering. I do not believe that heaven is a place of illusion such that the spirit becomes entirely ignorant of their previous life, I feel that heaven is a place of enlightenment and so the spirit will become keenly aware of that which took place in their life, though the impact of those events will no longer burden the them. So yes, because loss, in this sense, is a very real event it will certainly be remembered and the crime will be held against those unrepentant of it.

Or they will manifest a will, which not the same. Does a child have a will at the moment of conception? I do not believe that one can possess a will without the necessary parts and if you believe that will is something tied up with soul, then I cannot argue this any more than you can prove it, so I will leave it be.

Yes, this is certainly a philosophical question, and I do believe that will is a product of the intangible essence of a being.

But why? There is only one being with the authority to pass judgement on men, and if we can die with a completely clear conscience and be with him, what then is the problem?

For the victim there is no problem with God. However whether it is justified to destroy a person God created is the question at hand, and I for one believe that whether or not one's victim reaches heaven does not alter the malevolence of the crime. If God hadn't wanted that person to have life, He is perfectly capable of refusing them it, without the aid of men.

[Corvus]

Just quickly answering the few parts of your post that I can contradict through logic, since most of this debate we are having is a matter of opinion.

Are you a vegetarian, Crixius?

I consider the earth's other mortal residents to be neither peers nor persons, so were I a vegetarian it would not be due to a crisis of conscience. I do however believe that undue suffering should never be inflicted upon other creatures.

My point was simply that the other mortal residents are similarly gifted with life, and for most of us, there is no real need for to take away this gift when alternatives are available to us.

I believe that one is certainly aware of that which in life was striped of them, though I do not see that it would cause suffering. I do not believe that heaven is a place of illusion such that the spirit becomes entirely ignorant of their previous life, I feel that heaven is a place of enlightenment and so the spirit will become keenly aware of that which took place in their life, though the impact of those events will no longer burden the them. So yes, because loss, in this sense, is a very real event it will certainly be remembered and the crime will be held against those unrepentant of it.

But when the victim cannot regret the loss, won't it cease to become a crime? One cannot steal something that is freely given, and when in heaven, where one is content, if the crime really is of no consequence, and does not entail suffering, then I would think that it ceases to become a crime.

[Crixus]

Oddly I seem to have missed this when it was posted, perhaps due to similarities in our aliases. Nonetheless I'll post here and hope that nothing has been lost in the time between.

My point was simply that the other mortal residents are similarly gifted with life, and for most of us, there is no real need for to take away this gift when alternatives are available to us.

I actually do agree the first portion of this statement, which is to say that the other inhabitants of our planet have been gifted life and should be entitled to it barring circumstances of necessity. Unfortunately if life is to persist, at least most known life, it must then take life from another source, be it plant, animal, microbe or otherwise. As to my thoughts on vegetarianism; I happen to find a good deal of hypocrisy in it, as I hold all life, save human, to be of equal value, and as such could never reconcile the sparing of animals for the destruction of plants, and usually plants in some greater quantity in the order of supplying life-force equal to that which can be gleaned from animals.

I have though considered fruitarianism, which is, to my knowledge, rather a new concept whereby the person eats and consumes, that is to say wears and uses as well ingests, nothing harmful to the plant. As yet however I am unconvinced of the modern ability to become entirely fruitarian, while the eating portion may well be possible, albeit with some shuffling of diet, the consumption of modern amenities seems to necessitate the destruction of life.

However as it concerns human life, I find no comparison. I feel that human life is a special and unique thing, and so believe that any human has greater entitlement to life. More so, I feel that the taking of life as it applies to one's own species is a far greater matter than it is when concerning a separate species. So while I may regret the necessity of taking life from a living creature I also recognize that it is implicit in the silent pact agreed to with the continuation of my mortal existence.

But when the victim cannot regret the loss, won't it cease to become a crime? One cannot steal something that is freely given, and when in heaven, where one is content, if the crime really is of no consequence, and does not entail suffering, then I would think that it ceases to become a crime.

This is a rather interesting concept, I do not agree with it but certainly it bears discussing.

It would seem to me that were I an atheist I would find a crime in killing someone, even as I were to believe that no regrets would be held in the loss of life. So to me the crime remains, regardless of the journey beyond this life. However to the extent that I am not an atheist, and that it is my belief that the life beyond will prove more rewarding than that experienced on earth, I imagine that I hold less apprehension toward death than those who possess no such faith, or that hold the inverse to be true. Yet, I cannot escape the feeling that there is some universal purpose in our experiences on earth, something gained or learned by our mortality that must necessitate it, otherwise it would have been frivolous for God to make creatures of flesh. So, holding that mortal existence carries some universal meaning, I feel that whatever enrichment is endowed a spirit during its journey on earth would then be robbed of them in the case of abortion or any form of compulsory destruction. In that sense I feel that the crime does continue on to heaven, and is reprehensible to those there.

However in a mundane sense, I feel that because God created this existence for our experience, and because of how immersed we certainly become, we must do what we can to make the experience as pleasant as possible for our fellow travelers. Thus murder, that is the denying of or destruction of this experience for another human, must be the first crime amongst men, regardless of its treatment in heaven.

[filiasan]

God made a mistake by making me female, I guess. But, my choice still stands. I would rather die than have a child! You know what? I have acute scoliosis. My lower back bends inward at a point. A fetus (especially a male fetus) would damage my back severely. Also, I tend to have a low threshold for pain and I pass out easily if the hurt becomes to severe for me to stand. I'm not choosing celibacy either. God punishes women for having sex. Why doesn't he punish the men, too? Sure, sure, children are a blessing, but only if you make it a blessing. Whether or not a woman wants to have a baby, it's pure hell. Which brings to mind: oxytoxin. The hormone that makes women think the man is the most wonderful thing, after having sex; the hormone that drives women to clean even if they don't enjoy it; the hormone that gives women an irrational desire to have a child. I don't have enough of it, for it to brainwash me. Childbirth is God's gift and God's curse to us. And woman get the brunt of the force.

--the Status Disrupter

(p.s. There really are too many people, anyways. )