Pressing matters of the day and of all time, debated among thoughtful participants of all faiths

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

Reply to topic
Texan Christian
First Post
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:30 am  Abortion Reply with quote

Do y'all believe it is acceptable for a woman to have an abortion?

IMO:

when a woman says "I should decide what to do with my body" I'm like "well... first of all that baby isn't part of your body, it's someone else's body, so yeah..."

what're yalls views on this topic? post below!

Good day and God Bless Smile
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 71: Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:06 am
Reply

Like this post
Tcg wrote:

2ndRateMind wrote:

Quote:
However, given that I am a man, my opinion means pretty much nothing.


I have not noticed that ethics are ever sex/gender related.



Have you ever noticed which sex/gender gets pregnant? Taking note of that may help you understand my point.


Indeed. And so the final decision should always be for the girl or young woman concerned. But that does not mean no one else has a right to an opinion, and to input to the debate, or that their opinions are rendered irrelevant by their sex or gender.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 72: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:46 am
Reply

Like this post
Quote:
No, that is not what I argued. You responded to what I argued, yet missed it. How did you manage that?
Cut/paste: "Fetuses are aborted. To say human beings are, serves only to muddy the waters and appeal to emotion."


Quote:
That is not what I was responding to. I was using the definition, which you provided, to try and determine at what stage it is acceptable to kill an organism made up of human DNA. The definition you provided excludes many that current law consider to be human beings.

You seem to still be mistaken.
From the definition: "child of the species Homo sapiens"
Therefore, those you feel are excluded, are not.
But once again we are just trying to clear the waters you have muddied. This is a discussion about abortion and it seems you are doing anything you can to distract from that.

Quote:
Current law does not permit all abortion prior to birth. Do you believe that the law is wrong about that?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are referring to here nor can I figure out what my opinion on laws have to do with the subject at hand.

Quote:
When is it that you believe that what you claim to be nonhuman becomes human?

Thanks for asking. Once it has the same value as a human.

Quote:
Then why are you holding up current law as an absolute standard?

I don't believe I am.
Quote:
Do you believe in absolute stare decisis?

Absolute anything is a tough one to swallow. Exceptions to every rule and such...

Quote:
You are using it as a justification for your argument, are you not?

I am not. I'm just trying to keep you focused on abortion. You want to discuss murdering human beings for some reason. Therefore I provided a definition of 'human being' online in an attempt to keep you on track. I'm still here herding cats though unfortunately.

Quote:
Notice, I'm not arguing that since 50% of conceptions abort naturally that abortions should then be allowed.

Neither am I.
Readers, how do you guys herd cats?

Quote:
What I notice is that the people that rail the most against a women being able to choose to attempt to carry a fetus to term or not, generally worship a god concept that would be responsible for the 50% natural abortion rate. The irony!


Quote:
Are you arguing for abortion or against irony?

I'm pointing out the irony! Abortion is already legal.

Quote:
What of those who make the secular argument, as I am doing here? What argument would you make against an atheist who opposed abortion?

Not sure I would as I'm not pro abortion. I don't like abortions.
I would probably point out that a fetus does not have the same value as a human being and that it is wrong to restrict whether a women has the choice to attempt to carry a fetus to term or not.

Quote:
I have made no such argument here. You have presented that straw man argument in support of your view. If you wish to argue about theistic irony, then why does that obligate me to do so?

It doesn't. Just own it and move on with your judgement of women that choose to abort if that is your thing.

Quote:
I am discussing the ethics of abortion.

I personally don't find abortions ethical typically.

Quote:
Impossible since I am discussing the 50% natural abortion rate that god believers must be OK with for following such a god concept in the first place. Would you prefer I discuss chess here?


Quote:
No, I would prefer you discuss why abortion done by humans is acceptable

I'll do my best.
- A conception only has about a 50% chance to make it to term. This means that many abortions would have aborted naturally anyways. This does not make abortions acceptable in my opinion, but it does help to keep things in perspective.
- These abortions are the removal of 'Unwanted Fetuses'. Personally, I think we should worry more about the wanted fetuses and a bit less about the once that are unwanted. This again does not make abortion acceptable IMO, but perspective is important.
- A fetus does not have the same value has a human being. Again, perspective, not a justification for making abortion acceptable.
- I find it morally wrong to seek to legislate what a women can or cannot do with her own body. This is why I am pro choice while being anti abortion.

Quote:
Are you saying that the apparent irony of some theistic views is a justification for abortion performed by humans?

Nope, you really need to separate the two. What you theists think about your god concept does not affect my life (generally speaking). Seriously, believe a man lived in the belly of a whale for days or that animals can talk. Doesn't affect me.

Quote:
You must think, that I think a women has a choice to carry a fetus to term or not has something to do with a god concept coming up with process that aborts 50% of conception. My Pro Choice views have nothing to do with the gods.


Quote:
Well, you are the one who made the argument. Do you wish to withdraw it now and discuss the justifications for abortions performed by humans?

I believe you have just perceived that I have made this argument. See the bold above please.

Quote:
If not, what do the actions of deities have to do with the actions of men, in your opinion?

Nothing. There are literally thousands of god concepts, yet zero actions that we can show to be from any of them. Therefore, the actions (which are zero) have nothing to do with the actions of men.

Quote:
So, there are some people who hold ironic views regarding the killing of a zygote, morula, blastocyst, fetus and/or embryo.

Yes! These are religious people. Ironic no?

Quote:
However, what makes those things nonhuman

That they don't have the same value as a human. Call it a human being for emotional reasons all you like, but that doesn't change the value.

Quote:
and/or grants a human the right to kill them.

Laws grant this right.

Quote:
You appear to be arguing that embryos of humans are not human. On what do you base this?

Call them Mommy for all I care. Get all up in arms about people murdering mommies with your emotional arguments.
Their value is not the same though, no matter what word you use. I only ask that you attempt to use accurate words as to help foster good debate. Talking about aborting human beings or mommies does not help.

Quote:
What does what I may believe about a deity, ironic or otherwise, have to do with the nature of a fetus and the ethics of killing one?

Nothing. Do you notice the irony yet though? Perhaps it will not affect your thinking in the slightest, but perhaps it will affect another religious persons thinking. Perhaps I might even prevent the murder of a doctor that performs abortions.

Quote:
Are you making this argument or not.

No, you just did above: "There are humans systems where 50% of puppies die. What can dogs do about that? Is it therefore acceptable for dogs to kill their own puppies, just because humans set up systems that kill their puppies?"

Quote:
Is that your argument or not?

It should be clear that my argument mainly focuses on 'value' and a feeling that we should not legislate what a women can or can't do with her body when it comes to attempting to carry a fetus.

Quote:
Just so I can be sure to use accurate terms,

I'm sure as heck not going to hold my breath.

Quote:
when does one become a child of the species Homo sapiens and on what is that designation based? Does one need to have "superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance" to be considered a child?

Once it is born and can survive on its own. Can we go with that?

Quote:
Ah, you are making an economic arguement.

No, finances are not involved.

Quote:
So, what is it that gives a human value

Do you not value any humans? If you do, then ask yourself why.
I love many a human.
I value the friendships of many humans.
I care about the opinions of many humans.
I appreciate the help of many a human.
The list would go on and on.

Quote:
and at what point does that value make one subhuman?

There is not a point that I can place your finger on that I'm aware of. Either way, my position is that a fetus does not have the same value as a human being. You agree with me I'm sure, but subhuman is your word and once again probably being used for emotional reasons.

Quote:
After all, you say it is just an embryo or a fetus and it is not human.

I said we do not abort human beings and I have stated that the value of a fetus is not the same as a human being.[/quote]

Quote:
I have stated the relevant facts, a woman is heading to an abortion clinic having stated her intent to have the abortion. She is then harmed such that the child aborts naturally. Of course, she can sue for damages and pain and suffering. However, do you believe that she should prevail in a suit for compensation for a lost child?

Perhaps she should prevail?
It's not like her 3 year old child was murdered, but something which had some value was taken. She would probably need to convince the jury that she was going to have a change of heart though.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 73: Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:43 pm
Reply
Re: Abortion

Like this post
Texan Christian wrote:

Do y'all believe it is acceptable for a woman to have an abortion?

IMO:

when a woman says "I should decide what to do with my body" I'm like "well... first of all that baby isn't part of your body, it's someone else's body, so yeah..."

what're yalls views on this topic? post below!

Good day and God Bless Smile



I know I'm a little late here to express what I think. As I know that women don't think too well about stillbirths, I think it would help if I ask, What is the difference between a stillbirth and a stilled birth?

In addition, an abortion appears to me as a death in the family with all of its sorrows payable by a fee. Does the fee make it good?

Earl

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 74: Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:30 pm
Reply

Like this post


How many aborted fetuses will ever know they were aborted?

My guess is zero.

How many young girls and women will be shamed by such events for the remainder of their lives -- in many cases for momentary immature behavior?

Definitely not zero!

Who's the real victim here?

Let's hold the victims in our arms and care for them.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 75: Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:47 pm
Reply

Like this post
myth-one.com wrote:



How many aborted fetuses will ever know they were aborted?

My guess is zero.

How many young girls and women will be shamed by such events for the remainder of their lives -- in many cases for momentary immature behavior?

Definitely not zero!

Who's the real victim here?

Let's hold the victims in our arms and care for them.


If I might play a little Devil’s Advocate here, by this reasoning shouldn’t we also say:

How many murder victims know that they were murdered?

Wouldn’t your guess also be zero?

How many murders know that they that they have taken a human life and are shamed by such events for the remainder of their lives – in many cases because of momentary lapses in judgment?

Again, wouldn’t you agree that it is not zero?

Who’s the real victim here?



At any rate, I understand why this is such a divisive issue. From one point of view outlawing abortion is legalized slavery, telling a person what she can do with her own body.

From another point of view allowing abortion is legalized murder, killing people out of convenience and ignoring them because they have no voice and no one ever saw their faces.

I know where I come down on this issue, and I know why, but I won’t pretend it is an easy or straightforward issue.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 76: Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:05 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 75 by bjs]

Good point Bjs!

There is a difference -- planned versus unplanned.

No one plans to become pregnant and have an abortion. Should they be ashamed for something they did not plan, and something involving more than one person?

Murders are typically planned events. Murderers are probably ashamed when caught.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 77: Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:15 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to myth-one.com]

While I see your point, I am not sure if the analogy works.

The problem to me is that it treats pregnancy and abortion as a single event. I agree that no one plans to have a pregnancy that ends in abortion, but there seems to be two separate events there. The pregnancy was unplanned, the abortion was planned.

If we take the murder analogy, no one plans the events that cause them to commit murder. Say, for instance, someone commits murder to cover up stealing money. That person did not plan to get caught stealing money, even if she did the murder to cover up the earlier crime.

Neither the unwanted pregnancy nor the unwanted discover of theft were planned; both the abortion and the murder were planned.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 78: Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:52 pm
Reply

Like this post (1): Clownboat
bjs wrote:
[Replying to myth-one.com]

While I see your point, I am not sure if the analogy works.

The problem to me is that it treats pregnancy and abortion as a single event. I agree that no one plans to have a pregnancy that ends in abortion, but there seems to be two separate events there. The pregnancy was unplanned, the abortion was planned.

The original plan should be to postpone, or never become pregnant.

This is to be accomplished by abstinence or birth control.

There is no reason to consider abortion at this time.

Abortion comes into play only if the initial plan fails.

I would say that they are separate decisions and events -- although related.

I suppose that some use abortion as a final "means of birth control."

I don't think it starts out that way. Their starting goal is usually to prevent getting pregnant. This is in regards to consenting couples. Rape is a separate issue.

=====================================================================

bjs wrote:

If we take the murder analogy, . . .

When I wrote:

"How many aborted fetuses will ever know they were aborted?"

I meant to imply that fetuses know nothing.

This has to be true for some period of time.

During that period of time, I do not think they feel pain or sense anything.

Their existence is dependant on their host mother.


======================================================================

There is no shortage of humans on the earth. So governments should not force motherhood on anyone.

Not all "unplanned" children end up as "unwanted" children.

======================================================================


But for those who might be both, can't never existing be preferable to existing and unwanted?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 79: Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:02 am
Reply
Re: Abortion

Like this post
[Replying to Divine Insight]

Quote:
Laws should be made to protect the rights of the citizens of the state.


Quote:
A fertilized egg has not yet become a citizen of the state. Therefore the laws should be made to protect the woman's right to choose, since she is a citizen of the state.


Huh? Do we not have inalienable rights? Why should anyone’s rights be defined or determined by someone else? And who gets to do the deciding/determining? And upon what standard are they determining? Perhaps the standard that we all have natural rights. And if this is the case, then the unborn should have these natural rights as well – simply in being a human being (which, I’m pretty sure science shows they are). Clearly, it is not about being a citizen.

Reminds me of this funny video drawing illogical arguments out to their logical conclusion . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNgwsT295G8

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 80: Fri Nov 02, 2018 2:22 pm
Reply
Re: Abortion

Like this post
RightReason wrote:

[Replying to Divine Insight]

Quote:
Laws should be made to protect the rights of the citizens of the state.


Quote:
A fertilized egg has not yet become a citizen of the state. Therefore the laws should be made to protect the woman's right to choose, since she is a citizen of the state.


Huh? Do we not have inalienable rights? Why should anyone’s rights be defined or determined by someone else? And who gets to do the deciding/determining? And upon what standard are they determining? Perhaps the standard that we all have natural rights. And if this is the case, then the unborn should have these natural rights as well – simply in being a human being (which, I’m pretty sure science shows they are). Clearly, it is not about being a citizen.

Reminds me of this funny video drawing illogical arguments out to their logical conclusion . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNgwsT295G8


How do fertilized eggs exercise their natural rights?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version