Not quite, the USA never had laws forbiding women from voting, voting laws were passed by the states. Several states allowed women to vote, like Pennslyvania.
regardless of how you feel personally on the issue of abortion, read below and notice the distinct differences in crudeness and personal attacks between the PRO and ANTI people......I must say that one group needs to brush up on their manners......
Sorry nex233, I'm using this to get closer to shoeless' comment. Stupid people deserve to have their stupidity exposed. These people are just re frikken tarded. Maybe it's just because I've gotten my ex pregnant before, and if it weren't for abortions, I would have had to put my child into adoption by now. But being a man, I can't really say what is right or wrong, because ITS NOT MY BODY! If you think something is wrong, DONT DO IT. If you have a problem with something someone else is doing, talk to them about it and voice your opinion. Don't preach to the whole world about why certain things should never happen. I can think of a million things I'd rather not see anyone do. EVER. One example is staying with a girl or having a baby with her because you are afraid of losing her. And if I have a friend who is in that situation, I will voice my opinion to them. These people are just crying out to people they have no connection with, and expecting them to listen because they've gotten many people together to help them. In my opinion, protesting something that is such a personal choice as this is stupid. You might as well protest to make suicide illegal (I realize there are a few things wrong with that statement but you can understand the point I'm making). Or maybe people should be protesting to make tattoos illegal. And after that, let's protest and tell people not to piece their ears. And after that, why not protest plastic surgery. Ooo. And how about driving cars. There's a great one. Let's make it illegal to drive cars, cause that hurts a lot of families.
i've seen lots of glumbert videos and read a ton of mindless chatter, but this is my first post. this guy brings up a very valid question that these people should have been thinking about for a very long time. i have been in Christian ministry for years, and have never heard this conversation before. the simple reason is this: when the Christian community sees what they believe as a violation of God's law, and the society in which they live does not uphold God's law in that instance, they must speak out against that particular activity. calling something wrong does not mean dictating to the rest of society what the punishment for that wrong should be. i said the guy has a valid question, but what i resent is the implication that since these well-meaning, but befuddled people can't come up with an answer, that abortion should suddenly be left alone.
Anyone can make a video like this and only show the responses from morons. I'm sure the majority of people he interviewed had opinions different than those shown.
Like other opinions expressed....what we do not see are those who may indeed have an idea as to some sort of legal penalty. These people are aiming at stopping abortion (it is, after all, the violent ending of a life - maybe even more weighty than shooting a deer, don't you think) - they are not focused on what punishment should be rendered. That would, after all, be a legal issue determined after their first goal is attained...and not by them.
Having follower be "befuddled" makes religion easier to swallow. Easy to have followers work without contemplation and just take what they are told without thinking.
This was actually the subject of newsweek op-ed piece. It really is quite revealing when people who so earnestly support a certain cause are so busy waving grotesque signs around that they fail to rationally consider all sides of what is clearly a very complicated issue. And when they are caught horribly off-guard and stumble incoherently, they always turn back to "well, god told me to be here."
I am not at all interested in taunting people of faith, however, people who feel strongly enough about a certain issue to campaign for it on street corners should at least be informed enough to have a rational conversation about it without resorting to end-game statements such as "god told me to do it." That just reveals that they did not consider all sides of the issue before making a judgement.
Question: "How long have you been involved as an anti-Abortion protestor?"
Answer: : "A few years."
Question: "And in that time, have you ever thought about the women?"
Answer: "Ahhh....well....ummmm......no, not really."
Priceless. Notice how all the religious fanatics get an almost-dazed look in their eyes, when confronted with a sensible question they can't answer? To a junkie who's high, this is what's known as a "downer".
They are against it, and they think they know why, and have never really thought it through, but they want everyone in the country to be forced into compliance.
How can a person stand with a sign (for years) stating a position that THEY STRONGLY hold to be the correct position, and never really THINK about it!
I bet they put more thought into what they want for breakfast, than they put into their beliefs.
I am truely amazed that these supposedly well meaning, God fearing women that are so moved by this issue, and are so adament about this being "illeagal" have not thought about the consequences of their position. If you want legislators to get involved, then some hard choices need to be made. If these women want to see jial time being served for this "crime" then are they advocating the release of true criminals to make room in our already over burdened prison system. This is America, and if a woman decides that she wants to terminate her pregnancy, then it is her God given right. Only she can decide, and the government has no business making that decision for her.
So, in that line of thinking, if I decide to go out and kill a pre-school full of children, that is my God given right???? After all, you cannot legislate morality...
Exactly where did you get the idea this is a "God given right". The summation of our rights in the country are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. These, as defined by the founding fathers are in order of importance, right to life being most evident. If anywhere, it would fall under the right to the pursuit of happiness. Notice this is the right to PURSUE not the right to happiness.
Oh, and I believe that women who have abortions should receive the same jail time as those who offer their children for ilicit acts. The women are not killing the child, but the nurse's aid/nurse/doctor is. This person should receive the same penalty as those who commit pre-meditated murder, up to life in prison. Death is never a realistic penalty and serves no purpose for society. Its cheaper to keep someone locked up for their whole lives than it is to kill them.
If you think that way, there are going to be LOTS OF PEOPLE IN JAIL. Maybe by the thousands to ten thousands. With a already faltering penatentiary system in America how in the hell do you think Fed be able to handle it huh? That's a lot of women you want to put into jail.... discusting.
OK, this is exactly what i thought i'd get. is there anyone out there who knows how to give any kind of intelligent, honest debate on anything without resorting to insults or knee-jerk reactions? Opiate for the masses - it seems that's the only comeback some people have.
i mentioned the guy had a valid question. i admitted we evangelicals out here haven't given it as much thought as necessary. but i've tried to give you insight as to our world view as to how religion cannot legislate morality to the masses - but if no one is going to throw the red flag about how wrong abortion is, we will. if you have any substantive insight about this, i would invite your thoughts, not your anger. and as far as 'not thinking about the women', that is hardly representative of the pro-life movement. do you have a Crisis Pregnancy Center in your community? the woman is the focus of that particular ministry. counseling, encouragement, baby supplies, financial assistance, job placement, a genuine place of caring and support for the woman who is trying to make the most difficult decision of her life.
OK --- Here is some civil discourse on this subject.
If we are to accept the premise of God as Alpha and Omega, Omniscient, and Omnipotent, then all books written by man are unnecessary, even if they are presumed to be the word of God.
God will find His way to you (He knows how).
Example: If the written word of God is necessary to prevent a soul from going to Hell, then what about the poor unfortunate souls that never heard the word of God as ministered by some prideful ass with a book during their lifetime. They are not doomed to Hell. To say so is to know the mind of God.
I say according to the definition of GOD, leave the work of God to GOD, and people should stick to their personal relationship with Him, and stop insulting God by interfering with His works. When you minister to another human soul you are pissing in the face of God, basically saying I know better than You. This soul is Mine, for a reward from You.
How do all of these Humans know what God wants for ME and OTHERS.
Should I, or others be punished, imprisoned, or killed for these STRONG beliefs, that are not even thought through!
We don't let a cook perform surgery, why should you be "Doing Gods work". Let the cook prepare food, the surgeon perform surgery, and God, do Gods work (He does not need any help!).
Canuck, you first a simple answer to a complex question - yes, i do believe the government has every right to make laws based on moral issues - the other side of that knife is that government is not in the role of legislating morality, but enforcing the laws already on the human conscience that are there by God's design. we have done so already by making laws that virtually coincide with just about every one of the Ten Commandments that deal with human relations. murder, theft, lying (under oath), adultery (consequences thereof). abortion, by definition, is ending a life while still in the womb of it's mother. we have laws protecting that fetus from outside injury as well. the difficulty comes in trying to instigate a law that has never been on the books - in fact, has been fought against for a generation. abortion is a cultural norm now.
So IF.....and I say only IF...abortion is legal (which, in most states, it is), then you and like-minded persons would have no business interfering with the women who choose this procedure, or the clinics that provide them...right? Regardless of YOUR moral outrage, or whatever code YOU derive your "moral" stance from, you do recognize that it will have no basis in legal jurisprudence, and YOU will therefore advocate that these protestors stay at home, and make cookies, and leave everyone the hell alone......RIGHT?
You don't have to like it (and it's your choice not to), and you may even speak out against it (again, your choice and your right).....BUT.....
Canuck, let's take your argument - whatever is legal should be left alone. just because an activity is legal doesn't make it right. just because an activity as been deemed as a right doesn't make it beneficial to society.
if my neighbor sits in his house all day playing video games and all he eats is donuts and slams Mountain Dews all day, he hasn't broken the law. but what he is doing is harmful to himself in almost every way possible. if i care about his health, his mental and social development, i'm going to try to reach him with something more - something that will keep him from putting a gun to his head someday. i can't take the guy to court, and i'm not advocating the government regulating caffeine or donut shops (which i do believe is coming - and this not from religious zealots). so if i believe abortion is wrong, harmful to women, society, not to mention the potential life, then i must speak.
i do not have to respect your opinion in order to show you respect. i can believe you are wrong without showing disdain for you. and that is what drives people crazy. if they make make the fight personal, instead of about what is objective truth, then they have won.
i have been a minister in my own household for many years. i have one parishioner my wife but when i hold sermon she is never here. so i have you. lucky you. i believe there is an easy solution to this on going soul searching heartwrenching dilemma. the fetuses should be made to pay , rounded up and sent to texas where thay know how to handel trouble making fetuses. the death penalty. that will show um...........er wait ........ oh ya never mind.
but on a serious note i walk with shoeless on this one (disregard all the christen moralty), leave it alone. if a woman should ask me my peronal opinion and thay have on the matter. my answer will always boil down to this, that is between them and thier God. oh ya and the father ...perhaps .. lets not split hairs here. i believe in pro choise and i also leave it alone.
here's the problem Canuck - there are too many people on both wrong ends of this issue. 1) it is not a matter of my personal opinion. if it were, this would not be such a huge issue. millions of people (and throb is right to say it is not just a Christian platform) believe there is a higher authority on this one. moral relativism, anyone? but... 2) for pro-lifers, i do not think this issue can or will be won in the courts, in Supreme Court appointments, or our American congress. it is a cultural debate in my mind - people won over by not by arguments or votes, but by people living out the character of Christ and churches that care more about others than they do their own survival.
1) Canuck, stop copying off pod and writng in the form of a script. BE ORIGINAL for once in your life.
2) This film crew took hundreds of takes and included only the ones where the interviewees were befuddled. This biased reporting does not represent the majority of anti-abortion advocates who do have opinions on what should happen to the criminal if abortion were made illegal.
3) This is not just a christian issue. There are plenty of atheists who are vehemently opposed to abortion.
Hey Throb, here's a novel concept. Instead of tracking down every F**king post that Canuck makes and trying to shoot IT down, let's try this............COME UP WITH SOMETHING USEFUL TO SAY OR GIVE UP!
What a bunch of idiots! This video shows a snippet of how stupid people can be. Their response is "Its murder," but no time in jail. If these idiots want to make it illegal then they need to be ready to make life imprisonment or the death penalty a reality as it would be considered 1st degree murder as it is done intentionally and it was pre-meditated.
Hard to say manslaugther or 2nd degree. How do you argue that Canuck was only vacuuming out his cooch or if he decided to stick a coat hangar. Is it really valid that he just wanted to see what happens?
If someone is going to get an abortion are they really punishing themselves?
Its funny how these idiots are advocating making abortion illegal, but they have no voice for themselves. I wouldn't be suprised if half those woman already had abortions and thats why they don't want to attach a penalty.
I thought about it for a few minutes and you could get a reduced sentence! If you used a wet-n-dry vac to vacuum out the fresh buckets of semen or the coat hangar to scrape out the dried up stuff your defense would be sound.
Libertyville is a nice area and people are very well educated, so the truth is that though they might be against abortion and think that it should be illegal under the constitution, these people are smart enough to see the logic in not making a woman go to jail for this, whether they believe in a womens right to her own body vs death. Take someone less educated/metropolitan from Alabama or Kentucky and I guarantee that their responses would be "she should serve jail or she should somehow be reprimanded under the law"
Now I am pro choice and I believe this question this guy posed to all of these anti-abortionist is an extremely valid one. Sooo for the youtube republican debates, I will pose this question to the audience and hope it gets picked for the debate
What's the f'n point of making it illegal without ramifications? Intelligent? An intelligent person wouldn't agree to a law that holds no penalty.
According to Merriam Webster, law is defined as, " binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority."
How can it be law if it is not binding or enforced? Since you are the genius, answer it.
When abortion was illegal why do you think there were quite a few botched illegal abortions?
Maybe these backwoods retards should either use protection or engage in abortion themselves.
podman - you next OK, i am obviously beginning with the premise that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, altogether good Creator God. everyone has an angle, a foundation to their belief system. this is mine. So it should be obvious that i'm confused by your comments. do you have any idea that God has already found his way to us in at least two ways - Jesus Christ, and the written word (the Bible)? the issue of God sending people to hell who have never heard of his or his word is totally irrelevant to this discussion, but the part about interfering with God's work by helping others is pissing in the face of God? what? have you ever read what God has asked us to do in his name, for his sake, to show others the love and grace he has for them? Have you ever read the words of Jesus about helping the poor, feeding the hungry, making disciples? have you ever read the letters of Paul about how he confronted the godlessness of his age with the good news of Christ's sacrifice? the work of God is not done apart from the hands of men. people have been doing 'God's work' - although imperfectly, for centuries. the only reason i stand fast on my beliefs is not because i am a 'prideful ass', but because i read the scriptures. i do not believe i am better than you. i'm just a beggar trying to tell other beggars where to find bread
You did not curse at me like the other Christians.
I never met Jesus Christ. Although others here know I talk to him all the time. Right guys?
"The issue of God sending people to hell who have never heard of his or his word is totally irrelevant to this discussion"
Wrong! This is exactly relevant! That is what these people are doing. The difference between what we believe and what we do is the question.
These people are passing the word of God THROUGH their tiny minds, and vomiting it out in some different form. I would not presume to translate for God.
The word of God does not need translation.
Do good works, love mankind, etc. Just don't say that you are doing Gods work. Is that the sin of Pride?
Thank you!, Thank you!, Thank you! You are the first Christian to say this to me in my lifetime: "i do not believe i am better than you. i'm just a beggar trying to tell other beggars where to find bread" - I believe this also.
I agree here also: " the work of God is not done apart from the hands of men. " Just don't say it is Gods work. Just do your works with God in mind and say nothing. I think God will do the rest.
the issue of God sending people to hell who have never heard of his or his word is totally irrelevant to this discussion
if a Christian curses at you, i would have a hard time putting faith in their God too. sorry about the irrational ones among us. they obviously aren't following their Master's footsteps.
help me out here, i still don't know how opposing abortion is casting eternal judgment on those who perform or take part in that activity. if you pronounce an activity as a sin, then the one who performs it is guilty i suppose. this is not the unforgivable sin, however. i will not make the judgment call - that is God's job.
passing the word of God through tiny minds is all we have the ability to do. that's about as much as anyone can accomplish. the word of God does not need translated? it's not a matter of being warped to their own thinking (which some Christians are apt to do), it's a matter of seeing several places throughout God's word that speak directly against taking another human life and saying, "Look! This is what God says! Why can't you see this?" it isn't a debate over what God say - it's a debate over whether i am going to listen to God or not.
"Do good works, love mankind, etc. Just don't say that you are doing Gods work. Is that the sin of Pride?" OK, maybe you've go a point there. but understand what Jesus said in Matthew 28, "make disciples, teach them to obey all that i have commanded you" and the apostle Paul said in his second letter to the church at Corinth - "We are Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God." Christians only speak in terms of doing God's work and speaking God's words because that is what the scriptures speak.
Thanks for your appreciation and honesty. and i apologize if you've been turned off Christianity because of Christians. that seems rather self-defeating
You say this: "i still don't know how opposing abortion is casting eternal judgment on those who perform or take part in that activity. if you pronounce an activity as a sin, then the one who performs it is guilty i suppose."
I quote this: "He who is without sin cast the first stone." and paraphrase thusly: "He who's soul is of perfect purity cast judgment on others."
I would say that opposing abortion is fine. There is no reason to bring God into the discussion.
Just try debating the issue without invoking God. It can be done, and as a mental, and yes a moral task, it is worth trying, right?
To be humble before God. All of the following can be done without invoking Gods name:
("make disciples, teach them to obey all that i have commanded you" and the apostle Paul said in his second letter to the church at Corinth - "We are Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God." Christians only speak in terms of doing God's work and speaking God's words because that is what the scriptures speak. )
Pod - "He who is without sin cast the first stone." is one of the most misused and abused pieces of scripture there is. totally taken IN context, you find Jesus not condemning the woman, true - but then he says, "Go and sin no more." he agrees that she has been caught in sin. he calls it sin. in doing so, he agrees with the religious right-wingers that are about to stone her. but he shows grace, not condemnation - which is exactly what we are supposed to do. we call a spade a spade, but it's not our job to bring condemnation (that is, eternal damnation) on another human. if you take your logic to its conclusion, then our criminal justice system is a complete sham. everyone who's ever committed a crime could just quote that verse and expect to be off scot-free. no one is perfect - therefore, no one could ever point out any short-comings in anyone else.
No reason to bring God into the discussion? Without God, there is no discussion. without God in the discussion, what leg does anyone have to stand on who supports or opposes abortion, murder, theft, child molestation, or any law. where do you think we got our idea of what is good or evil - right and wrong? do you think we evolved this kind of thinking from a survival of the fittest mentality? to have moral law, there must be a moral law giver. to have any idea of right and wrong, there must be a source of ultimate good. every civilized culture since the dawn of man has had rules governing life, property, and family.
i'm afraid i cannot divorce my views about law, society, or family with invoking the name of God - because he has addressed them specifically. it is not pride or arrogance to rely on what God says in these areas, it is obedience.
There are the laws of Man, and there are the laws of God.
"if you take your logic to its conclusion, then our criminal justice system is a complete sham. everyone who's ever committed a crime could just quote that verse and expect to be off scot-free."
I stop at a red traffic light because it is for the good of my fellow man, as well as myself. There is nothing in the Bible about traffic lights is there? This is a law of Man that has fundamental extrapolations into common logic.
Jesus could Judge, because he was pure. We are not. I don't think we should use Gods words to perform judgments. We should apply only Mans laws to this duty.
I guess we will have to be disagreeing here: "to have moral law, there must be a moral law giver. to have any idea of right and wrong, there must be a source of ultimate good."
If man is as God intended, then the morality is built in. It really is if you think about it. We KNOW that killing may be wrong, because we don't want to be killed. Even a chipmunk knows this. It is built in.
The savagery meted onto mankind by absolutist thinking has been unrelenting since the awareness of fear sparked into the first human mind.
I see no relent until the separation of Faith from religion is achieved.
i didn't come into this discussion thinking i could change someone's thinking in a few words - but i did want to see how others would respond to what i had to say. thanks to canuck and podman for the chance to have some dialogue - it's helps my thinking.
i think you're right - we'll have to agree to disagree. i am a theist. and from what i can read, you may not be an atheist - but you may be some kind of Deist - one who thinks there's a God, but he is not at all interested nor does he meddle in men's affairs. so from this we begin, and from this we differ. "There are the laws of Man, and there are the laws of God." - i would contend that man's laws came from the very mind of God. you stop at a red traffic light because it is for the good of your fellow man, as well as yourself. nothing in the Bible about traffic lights? no. but all through scripture is the idea that life is precious, God-given, and it is to be protected. This common sense law has its very roots in a Christian world view.
"Jesus could Judge, because he was pure. We are not." And he did not judge (condemn) the woman - but he did say that what she had been doing was wrong. please do not lose that point.
"If man is as God intended, then the morality is built in. It really is if you think about it." You're right - the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes says that God has placed eternity in the heart of every man. Man was perfect once, and his pride and sin darkened his thinking and we've never been the same since.
"The savagery from absolutist thinking has been unrelenting since the awareness of fear sparked into the first human mind." Come on, don't give in to this multicultural rhetoric. You're pulling the old Yoda quote, "Fear leads to anger - anger leads to hate - hate leads to suffering." i don't disagree with you because i fear you. i won't kill you because you're an infidel - whatever that is. absolutist thinking is only savage when I have to be in control - when my glory, money, power, or tradition is at stake (i have none of each). my absolute truth comes from the God who said, "the truth shall set you free"
thanks again - i hope iron has sharpened iron here and helped both of us
I have no idea how this turned into such a biblical debate, however the bottom line is America is about choices. Abortion is about a woman's choice to decide whether she wants to carry a baby or not.
No matter our viewpoints by stating that abortion is illegal then we are allowing the government to tell woman what they can and can't do with their body. If they don't want to carry a fetus then should they really have to?
Its nor about morality its about choice. If you feel otherwise then go live in another country where abortion is illegal and you can live in your ideal socitety.
You don't have to favor abortions in order to be pro-choice, you should just recognize that you wouldn't do it yourself.
useddouchebag - You should reread this little discussion a little closer. Shoeless and I were discussing this very point. Should morality bolstered by religious rhetoric be used to control peoples lives by forcing legal actions upon them.
My view on this. For what it is worth.
I agree with you. This is not a religious issue. It may be a moral issue however. It depends on our own world view.
Is it a life - Yes/Maybe. (spontaneous abortion, inviable, cancer, etc..)
Does that life belong to the mother (Yes?), (to God? Yikes!), or to everyone, but the mother (Yikes again!). I say it belongs to the mother, until birth.
How do we know this? The very clear dividing line of birth, and the very clear dividing line of fetal dependency.
Also on the fuzzy lines drawn for personal actions we have the morality issue. Religion constantly tries to redefine the morality issue and claim it as the word of God.
Does morality belong to the individual (Yes), or God (Yikes!), or to society (depends on the society!).
Is it a legal issue. I think not. If the fetus belongs to the State, then We all belong to the State. I want to be free from all encumbrances of the law in regards to my personal self, and thoughts. This is why in the discussion above I was trying to separate the actions of the Law, from the beliefs of a religion.
As you can read above, the religious mind set, is to embrace these encumbrances by the State, and indeed to create more, because they already accept the encumbrances of their religion, and by accepting that they cannot accept that others would act opposition.
However Mr. shoeless did understand that the State may not be the best arbitrator for these issues, because of the direct conflict within his religion to do this (very enlightened here), and the conflict of other religions to this point.
Ummmm......I think there is a little something in the US constitution that is supposed to separate church from state. Now if there had not been this separation these church fanatics would still want to burn heretics at the stake. Look out Pod, you may be shrimp on the barbie.
Everyone has their own opinion in God and religion. However, the vocal "religious" people need not try to force their beliefs down everyone's throats.
You don't have to go to church or even memorize the bible in order to be spiritual.
In some cases, churches are nothing more than businesses for preachers/pastors/etc. to become wealthy from. Why do pastors need to drive high end Cadillacs, BMW's, or Jaguars? Look around and you will probably see a church on every corner, and in some cases they are like castles. It is difficult to respect an entity that is supposed to be for the good of the people when in many cases it is for the good for themselves. I will not lump all churches together as I am sure that there are many good churches out there.
There are several christian sects that believe that an individual can be saved WITHOUT being exposed to the word AND they base their beliefs on interpretation of the same scripture.
Speaking of Islam, I got ole Muhamed down here on a nightly gang ass-raping ruitine. He's starting to enjoy it too much though when Hitler cums in his mouth.
Yes Pod. Canuck and you are next. Enough pressure and ridicule will make a person question themselves. Next comes a period of soul searching and whether they want to continue travelling the high road. When they decide the high road is not very fun, the low road is a fun filled time of childish antics and verbal lambastings. Once they have decided the low road is more fun the "hidden" bipolar personality surfaces, hence the alias.
Not necessarily. Look how something as mild as water over time can erode rock. You may not be chisled in a day, but you will slowly be eroded over time.
These people are stupid. How can people who are against something this strongly not think about the consequences and penalty for those who commit this "crime" they are protesting against? Stupid!
If the rightwing Christens ever got thier way and Abortion were once again illegal in all states imposed by the federal goverment. then hold on to your asses because if you think Baghdads a hot spot for violence . well see what happens here. and thats exactly why it wont.
I think it's wierd that nobody said, "It's not the women that should be punished, it should be the people who performed the procedure."
That would make sense, relatively speaking of course. The whole issue way too complicated for anyone to have an infallible opinion over, unless they draw upon conclusions that have yet to be varified as fact.
Me? Yeah I'm against abortion. I think it's pretty F***ed up. But I have to admit to being a hypocrite because in some cases (pregnancy as a result of rape, having sex too young, etc.) it would seem like an abortion is the best option.
If Abortion was struck down by the Supreme Court, all it would do would allow the STATES to decide if it was illegal or legal. Do not fear, slayers of children, New York, California and other liberal bastions would be abortion havens and it would be perfectly legal.
The simple answer, of course, abortion is taking of life. Murder is the illegal killing of one human being by another. Infanticide is the practice of someone intentionally causing the death of an infant. There are already laws on the books when someone murders a pregnant mother. Is there such a dramatic difference for a mother who wishes to terminate her baby?
Don't give me the law shouldn't get into the bedroom or your sex life. My friends in the USA, it already DOES! (Ex: prostitution )
tell me oh wise one how do you so called christens stand at the true murder and taking of noncombatant life when it come in the form of the death toll now ringing in the desert of Iraq?
Abortion is a poor moral choice, but should not be illegal. I agree with Throbstick (heaven help me - haha) I base this on my OWN moral beliefs, as I am an atheist. But abortion does not bother me nearly as much as the santimonious church goers who oppose it based on being called by their god. Shoeless - How exactly did you determine that God presented himself through Jesus Christ and the bible? You only think of these as being somehow important given the time and place of your birth. Why should I accept that Jesus is any more real than Zeus, or Ra, or Thor? As for the bible - have you actually read that thing? How do you reconcile all the Old Testament business about killing anyone who speaks against God, etc including your own children?!?! with wanting to cherish and protect the unborn?
Religion and its deluded followers have caused far more pain and suffering in our world than any abortion provider.
Shoeless, you seem to be "relatively" level headed in your approach at times. But then you offend the atheist or the humanist who has very high moral character by saying his morals have no basis. I dare say that per capita I find atheists and humanists to practice a higher morality than christians.
And what is this reference you make to godly sins including lying only if it is under oath? I will believe the word of someone who refuses to take an oath on the basis that it falsely certifies a statement and that every thing spoken should be the truth over someone who swears on a stack of bibles.
Even if these video responses were selected from hundreds, these particular individuals are following blindly without thinking through the whole problem. I did find the woman who resorted to counting her beads the most disturbing when she refered the reporter to someone else over there somewhere to answer how SHE felt about something. And those that were not lawyers so they could not answer how they felt. Did they actually think lawyers somehow had more valid feelings than themselves. That is really sad.
I think people should take responsibility for their own thoughts, opinions, and morals and stop blaming god, lawyers, or that guy over there.
"God" is not actually some being out there in heaven who points at souls and sends them spiraling up into the heavens or down into hell at the time of death.
Think about this for a moment... just ponder it, even though it digresses from Christian belief:
God... is the collective body of all souls in the universe. Souls come back time and again in different lifetimes and life forms to live out lives and learn different lessons to further their development. Souls live in the 5th and 6th dimensions however, so the timing and sequence of lifetimes doesn't matter... meaning "I must have done something bad in a past life" doesn't make sense to a soul.
A woman who has an abortion stops the manifestation of a life through that form, but that soul will come through in another form later somewhere else more appropriate.
Just a thought.
Lastly... why hasn't any one talked about some of the other relevant issues here?
1. define "person". Is a fetus really a person? Just because it has a heartbeat and arms and legs, does that make it a person?
2. anyone concerned about over population?
3. Was Jesus really pure? Does it matter? Did he have to be so pure to be able to do God's work?
4. The Bible was written by MEN, not God.
That's it... just some thoughts.
And yes... I do have children, who I love very very much.
And yes... I did abort a fetus once. It would have been a very bad situation if that baby had been born.
BigBad-
You may define God anyway you wish. (I am not aware of Christians who define Him in the manner you put.) Defining has always meant putting boundaries upon. We are in no position to do that without our biblical inferences. You should go see how God defines Himself and by inference and asociation can we humbly try to understand.
1. We cannot define "person". That is a philosophical place. But, we do know that at conception, that organism is on its way to being a human being, not anything else. By that virtue alone, society has a duty to regulate the termination thereof. No fictional right trumps that.
2. No...anyone concerned about an arrogant elite who might wish to choose who can and cannot live?
3. Yes. If not, then all of Christianity is false. There is no room for error in the belief that Jesus is God personified. Yes, he did.
4. What is your point? If it is the inspired Word of God, what is the problem. When people assert that, it is usually because they have not taken the time to read and study what it is they do not like or disagree with. It is intellectually lazy. Understanding and then obedience comes with time and experience.
Fortunately, your mother didn't have the same feeling about you when you were born.
Oh yeah... yes... I believe in God or the Divine... just don't believe that MAN has ever really been able to describe or understand it. Everyone has theories, and no one really has it all right.
True...but, I like other Christians, don't ask that you believe us...but that you believe God. If there is a creator who is all knowing, etc...it would be in our best interest to find Him, submit to His wisdom (He did make everything so is infinitely smarter than us) and find out how we fit into His plans. It takes submission of our will...intellectual, emotional, physical and spiritual.
Not likely that either side of this issue is going to persuade the other to agree with them. However, there is something important to take away from this video. And what you should take away from it is very very different from what the documentarist (ha!) was attempting to portray.
The theme of the clip is an attempt to show pro-lifers as a bunch of ignorant hillbillies who never gave any "real" thought to the subject of abortion.
But what I noticed about the clip is the fact that these pro-lifers are so concerned about what they consider to be the taking of an innocent life that their concern never laid with retribution against the perpetrators. And I think that this is very telling. In fact, it seems that they are so unconcerned with punishing the people who are committing these acts that retribution and revenge against them is largely the furthest thing from their minds.
In light of this, one would think that the left might reconsider their portrayal of social conservatives as hate-filled misanthropes. But who are we kidding? The left engaging in self-reflection? Now THAT'S the thinking of an ignorant hillbilly.
Joe Friday--the detective who sees what is missed. Great observation and beautiful reasoning. "Just the facts" has been elevated.
Bill-which part do you debate?
Streamlined, let's say that I grant you that the bibleis the inspired word of God. I still can't come to grips with the fact that decades after it was written, man chose which books made it and which books didn't make it into the bible as we know it today. That implies some human intervention/interactivity to say the least. Of course you could say that God inspired those men to make the decisions to put the right books in the bible, but that's just conjecture since it doesn't say that in the bible.
Someone once made a very valid argument to me in this reguard;
The Bible is the Oliver Stone version of what MAY have transpired.
Criticize all you want, but it's amazing how short a period of time needs to pass between any event and it's subsequent retelling for it to get twisted. Do I agree that Jesus existed, Yes. The rest of the story is debatable at best.
T-that is a reasonable direction to go. However, do some specific digging as to why the canon has arrived at it's current state. Which books were eliminated and why? Do those books add or detract from Christianity overall?
You see, I am not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The miracles. There is physical proof that Jesus existed yet only a very few people account on the actual miracles themselves. Most, long after the fact.
Nope, sorry Stream, lost my blind faith years ago. Just a realist now. Wont debate you on it because I believe that all people have a right to their own path and whatever leads them. If there is a God, I hope he's got a damn good sense of humour.
B-You do believe in lots of things that require faith, that you have not observed. Anytime someone tells you where they were, what they were doing, etc...you belive as an act of blind faith. Whenever you read a newspaper article and believe it...you do so on blind faith. If you believe tha scince has demostrable proof of the past, you do so on blind faith.
I am not trying to undermine your right to your path, only the path itself.
I imagine God smiles at human folly but weeps when we don't find our way closer to Him.
Right, but someone telling me they went to the mall is a lot different to someone telling me they went to the mall in Sydney, Australia and back in 20 seconds. I wouldn't believe that with more proof. Billy is saying that his burden of proof test is passed for the existence of Jesus but the bar is higher for miracles simply b/c of the frame of reference we humans come from.
The question is all wrong! Abortion is not being prosed as being illegal. The act of performing an abortion is the item on the table. Now go back and ask the same people if the doctor performing an illegal abortion should be punished. I suspect you won't though, because you will not get the answer you were looking for. Cowardice I must say, and a twisted way to try and make good intentioned individuals look incompetent.
The issue in America is the performance of the procedure, and that is where the punishment is and would be directed.
Wait--lost me. Abortion is not being proposed as being illegal, but performing it is?
If it becomes illegal, I suppose there would be some sort of punishment for the people performing the abortion. Where is the cowardice?
notice: these are what the pro-choice people call "right wing extreme phsyco haters". they seem to me like perfectly normal loving people. maybe because i am one of them.
You can have your own opinion, but many of the outspoken ones are head cases to say the least. Because you are self-proclaimed then you will be lumped in with the head cases. This is stereotyping at its best.
yes, i know of one of those good people you know the guy who blew up the clinic killing a few sinners . please tell me you remember. his name was eric ..... oh must i look it up naaa u know who and what im speaking of. real good people he turned out to be.
stream proof, proof, proof i ask proof of this so called word of god ! you say the word of God is written by Man inspired by God and that is the Bible .am i wrong? i ask for proof of this you refer me to the Bible am i also wrong? how is it when i say that i believe christ showed me the way to God i had the feeling that if i didnt believe as you and perhaps a few more of the "christen" hard liners then i wasent a true believer riddle me that Batman! i said it once and i will say it a hundred times the Bible was written by man and rewritten by men who were lets just say less then trustworthy shall we . do you remember playn a game called Post office ? 7 to 8 kids sitting in a circle. after looking at a piece paper one kid starts off wispering what was written the secomd kid in turn does the same and so on untill the last kid translates what he believes was the message. well the Bible is the biggest game of Post office ever played. i believe in good, i believe in love and i believe God is those two and those two only. it is my belief that there is no angry God, there is no jealous God and there is no vengeful God , we Humans take care of that our selfs we need not blame him for our folly.
but then again what the fuck do i know im just a christen gone wild!!!
Rf-Where do you get your beliefs? You demand proof of things that require faith and then only a few sentences later tell us what you believe...WITHOUT ANY PROOF!
Everytime you talk about how the Bible came to be, you show ignorance and laziness for throwing it all out.
Randall-which parts of the Bible do you accept, which do you deny...and why? If we can all just simply pick and choose based on how smart we think we are, then what good is any belief?
(PS-when trying to show your (a) sound Christian beliefs, or (b) your ability to reason...try not dropping the "F" bomb; you come off with more credibility.)
Ok, despite the morons in this video, I noticed something, not sure if anyone else saw it, but the adds just to the right of the vid were about fertility clinics and adoption. I even refreshed the screen several times and the same ones kept coming up. Either it's strange irony or glumbert is against abortions.
Silly, silly monkeys and thier crazy ideals. Think in poise, always wonder about your actions and what reactions may come from them. Where are the responsible, intelligent, non-delusional people these days?! Evolution, De-Evolution or Destruction - these are basically our 3 pathways for the future, wonder what it will be. My opinion anywho, respect all your thoughts and such, hope you find out this dry argument is all that it is. To each thier own.
Personally, I haven't decided on the whole Jesus being son of God thing.
From a proof standpoint though, ask most historians, the bible passes more reliability and authenticity tests than any other historical document more than a couple of hundred years odl. And we take those other documents as a matter of fact.
That is very, very true. The larger point I was making earlier is about faith as a whole. There are many fantastical things that people believe, that they demand no proof of...yet, demand proof from the Bible and miracles. If one believes in a God who made the world, why is it such a stretch to believe in the miracles at the hand of that same God?
To beleive that though you have to believe that Jesus was the son of God. If you're there, then miracles from him = God are easier to believe.
The model seems to complciated and pointless - why send down someone in the form of man?
If the angel lucifer, a being more powerful than us, fell, wasn't it pretty obvious that man would also fall and therefore isn't it a flawed model? I jsut don't get that. Didn't God learn after the lucifer fall? how could he make the same mistake, yes mistake, with a lesser being????
Good questions
Lucifer was not an angel. Satan was. (Lucifer's tale is a different one that has been miscast over time.)
As Adam's rebellion shows, it is human rebellion and willfulness that keeps us apart from God. The model-where man willingly returns to his connection with God-is perfect. It would appear the angels were/are, in that capacity, subject to willful dissent, like us.
Why is it a mistake to give life, life with a will to choose, so that that life can choose you? It was out of love that He brought us into being. The alternative: bring nothing into life OR bring robots/automotons into being that do not have the capacity to choose Him, but rather only do as He says.
The philosophical answers you want are not understood or accepted immediately and take time, prayer and study...of the Bible.
One way or the other, belief takes faith in the unseeable and unknowable. You may want proof in this matter, but make no mistake, you are believing, as a matter of faith, in many other things elsewhere in your life.
good morn: i have to go to lowe's so quick lets speak of faith . i have very littel , yet its one of the things i pray for . just awhile ago i wrote to you saying the Bibel was a good reference book with some historical data backed up by Greek and Roman text aslo dating back several thousand years . i told you my beliefs as far as Jesus and God and i will say nothing about that here . i will ask you a queston here then i must be off. 1: is it in your belief that the world was created 7 to 10.000 years ago 2:was man created from clay and then God breathed life into him(literitly)? i know these questons were posed to you on another page and i seem to recall your answers , but i would like to see them on this page . wife calling ..... snaaaaaappppp oh and i started to pray for god to remove my man tits that some one was so mean to point out .lol
I am sorry you have very little, Randall. I would suggest you have a lot, just not in the same place I do.
1. Yes
2. Yes
Your wife loves you anyway, despite your feminine attributes. : ) Hey, what's it like having for yourself the things that boys can't keep thier hands off of anyway?
Right, but back to my question on the Fall. If powerful angels were prone to fall, why would God create a lesser being out of love? Wouldn't that being be more likely to fall and therefore defeat the purpose of spending time together and havig a connection with God? Wouldn't it have made more sense to create a more powerful being than the angels with less flaws, but one that still had a choice? Also, if we can be saved, what about Satan?
I do believe in God, but struggle with the Fall, Jesus, etc. And I know it's tougher to get there the older you get! I've read R.C. Spraul, C.S. Lewis, and countless others. Even went through Case for Faith and Case For Christ. I end up with more questions than answers.
It is good that you are seeking because we all go through periods of doubts and certainty.
There are a few ways to go on this and you could try any or all of them:
1. Havinga choice means we could choose no God, choose our own rules, etc. I believe that is what makes choosing Him so profoundly wonderful. Read the story of Moses and remember, they were not a Jewish people with formal instructions frm God...they had only faith. See where you might fit into that.
Be back in a minute...
I once read that maybe god has a twisted since of humor and we are to him as a child is to an ant farm. Throw a few curve balls at the ants and see what happens.
I think I would get bored after eons and need to do something entertaining. Yet people would argue that he throws these curve balls in order to see how individuals cope with problems, losses, and to see how strong their faith is.
A thought for you to ponder. If god wants to test our faith with the premature death of a loved one and it was god's will, then would he not be guilty of a sin? If this is the case then how can we be judged for our sins?
Used-Who says God tests our faith by the death of a loved one? The fact that our faith is tested (in all life's situation) does not mean that is why God allowed someone's death.
Then why do you religious fanatics spew "god's will" whenever possible as to when something negative happens? You see it in the media all the time when religious people are being interviewed. You see it and hear it in sermons, so please don't ask me "Who says?" So you are essentially implying is that it is a cop-out for people to use and not live up to the realization that things happen. You are trying to take god out of the picture.
Define testing our faith? You will say something to the fact that we are tested daily blah blah blah..... Death is an everyday situation that someone has to endure. So yes it is a relevant situation in the testing of faith. We all endure this multiple times throughout our lifes. If god didn't allow it, then why didn't he prevent it and perform a miracle?
Used- Saying something is in God's will is not the same as saying that it is a test of ones faith. That is not complex. They are unrelated. If a car crashes, I might say it is within God's will. It is completely different for me to say that God crashed that car to test my faith. Unrelated.
I know you can see that.
Before the Fall(man's willfull sin): no death
After the Fall: death. ("For the wages of sin is death.) Man brought sin into the world. And, if I believe God gives me a will to choose His path or another, I have to accept that death is a natural outcome in this world.
Stream- you are slowly but surely catching on. You said, " Saying something is in God's will is not the same as saying that it is a test of ones faith. That is not complex. They are unrelated. If a car crashes, I might say it is within God's will. It is completely different for me to say that God crashed that car to test my faith."
If it is within god's will then he allowed it to happen, and not him physically crashing the car. He is not a child smashing matchbox cars together. They are different yes. Allowing something to happen is not the same as doing it, however there was no attempt to stop it. Religious people believe in miracles and god's intervention is what people call miracles. If a drunk driver smashes into a car and kills a family, did god do it? No - the drunk driver did it. Did god allow it to happen? A miracle would have allowed the family to live.
There is a correlation between god's will and the testing of faith, if you are a christian believer. I am not stating that this is my opinion, I am simply pointing out the fact that Christians often correlate god's will and testing one's faith. Maybe this clarifies my point.
Used
Thanks for the clarification. (Not sure what your point is other than agreeing with me. I hope-I hope.)
However, I don't understand why you think, as an observer, that people living or dying in a car accident represents miraculous achievement. Miracles are often in the eye of the beholder.
2. Satan cannot nor will not be saved. There is a material, spiritual and philosophical explanation about Satan in the Bible. It is really all over and not in one section. So, understanding Satan's role comes with time and study. Know this: He is the willing master of the world, but only because God has allowed this situation to be. That makes the roles of choices that much more important and that much more rewarding to God when we choose Him.
3. If an all-powerful God made everything and knows all, and I believe in Him, I trust He knows best...especially when I do not understand.
(There is a great book called, "A Handbook on Christian Apologetics" by Tacelli and Kreeft. It is broken into chapters with question just like ours.)
All I learned is something I have always known about pro-lifers, they never think about anyone but the fetus. To them, I am just an incubator doing my job. Not one of these people have anything to say about the aborters except, "They will get their punishment after death". I saw one hypocrisy after another, once they were asked what should happen to the aborter if it was illegal. They are more than satisfied to let God judge them after death, but they feel compelled to do it on earth anyway. Not one of these people actually knows what judgement awaits anyone for any sin. Their so hyped up on their own free will so they don't want to share.
wow.... y'all are still debating and debating, as we have been doing for thousands and thousands of years. It is a philosophical and scientific question "where do we come frome? why do we exist?"
The whole problem with Christianity and most other mainstream religions is that they base their beliefs on a book that has at its root a logical fallacy. The fallacy is:
"This is the word of God. It is written here, therefore it is true."
A long long time ago, when 98% of the population was illiterate, and went to church to get their sermons, in latin, this held water. It was a time of mystery, a time when the commoner knew nothing what the clergy knew and did not have access to education, or BOOKS. The power of the written word was indeed that... very powerful. So the blind faith argument, and the arguments of "God has a plan" which is not an argument at all, held water.
However, now we can all read. Science and critical thinking are taking over large portions of the population (although most of them live in Europe, and here in the USA people are still captive to the Fox network) and this "blind faith", "miracles", and "because God said so" doesn't hold water anymore.
If Christians are going to continue to dominate the world as they have for the last two millenia, they're going to need to stop referring to the Bible as their reference. They need to look up the definition of "circlular reasoning" and start looking else-where for their answers.
Just because someone writes down on a piece of paper "this here is the inspired word of God" doesn't make it actually true. Did you ever consider that?
Last however.... to do that... to question the very fundamental tenets of Christianity is kind of like experiencing an earthquake when doesn't even know they exist. The earth, that solid thing that we've been standing on our whole lives, where we built our house, our castles, our government, the very foundation of EARTH, MOVES!!!! It's also kind of like divorce... it just turns everything upside down. But this turning upside down doesn't ruin us, it broadens our horizons, wisens us, prepares us for other ordeals down the road in life.
I live in California so I've lived through lots of earthquakes and divorces. =)
So... feet boy, streamy et al.... put down the stupid Bible, acknowledge it's a BOOK for God's sake, and start experiencing God in the world, and talk about THAT. There is plenty of GOD in the world, in people's hearts and minds, in action, in miracles that happen all over us every day NOW. Stop quoting the stupid book, and start quoting life!
Bigbad-
Such flawed reasoning. I will humbly try to undo this rationale of yours.
1. "Where do we come from and why do we exist" are in no way scientific questions. Science can only test and study the here and now. If we, by inference, draw other conclusions, those are wholly philosophical.
2. What logical fallacy are you referring? If I believe that the God of the Bible is the one, true God, then what is illogical about believing the Bible as a whole? Now, if I do not believe in that God, then I would have no use for the Bible. There is nothing illogical there.
3. You have no reason to believe that that proportion of people were illiterate. I assume you are referring to a time when the Catholic Church held sway over Europe. What about the rest of the world? What about hose that were literate? Sweeping statements that seem to bolster your worldview should be correct before making them.
4. "Blind faith, Miracles and Because God says so" doesn't hold water anymore. Who is your source? It sounds like you are uncritically drinking the materialists Kool Aid. Faith holds the same plce it always has. The double edged sword of knowledge cuts both ways: We find how so very little we know but invariably think we know everything. If there is a God who made everything, it follows that He knows everything. If that is the God of the Bible, thn I had better know the Bible.
5. What other reference book is there for Christians?
6. Just because you say it isn't doesn't mean it isn't. What specifically, do you have a problem with in the Bble? What apparent logical conundrum, untruth, or general misgiving?
7. Please clarify the earthquake anaolgy.
8. Your arrogance is showing. "Stupid Bible"? I could spend weeks talking about my experiences as they relate to God, people and myself. I believe you want the Bible to be out of bounds of discussion because you know very little of what is in it.
ah... 1. the question itself is philosophical or spiritual, the method is scientific. We CAN answer questions about the past with science.
2. the logical fallacy is called "circular reasoning"
3. let's do a little research on the percentage of literate people in western europe over the ages. You start. Start around the year 500 ad perhaps. See if you can find some charts or graphs or reliable statistics.
4. my source is the secularization of the world and the turning away from religion in general by the masses (not in the US where there is a huge evangelical movement underway) Christians complain about it all the time.
The word "if" is a very interesting word. We can put lots of things in front of it. IF the Bible is true... what about IF it is not?
5. There is life itself.
6. I have problems with: -- Circular reasoning. It's the same logic that our government is using right now to tear down the constitution and our civil rights. -- The idea that there is only ONE path to God, and you better pick the right one or you're going to Hell -- The idea of Hell or damnation -- The idea that a human has to be "pure" to do God's work or to experience God in the fullest or become a realized being and bring divinity to the planet. If this idea wasn't so important to you then movies like the Da Vinci Code and the Last Tempation wouldn't be so threatening to you. Why would "all knowing" God send down someone to live a different life than Man? Think about it... if you want to teach, the best way to do it is to lead by example. I would like Jesus much better if he had a job, a dog, a wife, and some kids.
7. earthquake analogy. I'm referring to the dissolving of corrolaries or axioms or beliefs that someone has held their entire lives.
8. Sorry... didn't mean to offend you. It's just that some of the logic purported to be in the Bible, about there being only ONE way to "salvation" is ridiculous. There is nothing about life that is homogenous. Life thrives on diversity. The ideas of "obediance" and "blind faith" are great tools to control masses of people... same with the idea of a common enemy like Satan, Sadaam, or Osama.... or Jews. You name it. It's an old old formula.
I admit I have not read the Bible in its entirety. I have only read parts of it and had discussions with lots of people who have read it and studied it extensively.
I know there are some great ideas in it, but there are also some really bad ideas held firmly by most Christians I have met.
the biggest problem I have is that the Bible is the only thing Christians refer to in their spiritual quest for righteousness. Why refer to a document that is flawed when there are so many great lessons and examples in life itself and all around us? Why not seek inside our hearts?
oh yeah... this video is dumb. Just because these people haven't thought of punishment for people getting or performing abortions doesn't mean they don't believe in what they are doing. All they are saying is that they believe it is wrong and that people shouldn't do it. No harm in that.
Glad you are giving so much thought to this BigBad-
1. Science cannot answer questions about the past, ever, under any circumstances. We must infer. Science can ONLY study and test the here and now. Answering the past come from inference filtered through a worldview. (As a scientist with a degree, this is something with which I am very familiar.)
2. Are you sure you know what circular reasoning is? How is any of the above circular?
3. That's right...there aren't any. But, there were schools, churches, etc...and many of them taught reading and writing. Your 98% assertion is absurd.
4. I don't argue that the world appears to be more secularized. My point was that blind faith, miracls and because God says so still hold water. Maybe not with you, but, as I have said before blind faith plays the same role in your life as it does mine...our sources are different. (You may have misunderstood me...your "if" statement proves the point of mine.)
5. Why do treat the reading of the Bible and life experiences as mutually exclusive?
6. What circular reasoning is that?
I am sorry you do not like what is taught by Christianity, but it is what it is. God, nor anyone else, ever claimed you have to like it to make it true. I have no problem with "not choosing the right path equals going to Hell." Isn't that part of the point in choosing the right path? Consequences of our choices.
No human is "pure". We are all fallen. Yet, many of us still try to do what God wants. (DaVinci Code and last Temptation were not real threats. They do warrant a response from the Christian community, however. DaVinci Code, in particular, is shown to be full of historical falsehoods and outright lies made up by Dan Brown. So, no threat here, really.)
Jesus was sent to be the sacrifice that makes repentance and salvation possible. In doing so, He was the example of what we should aspire to be like. You are doing what so many do when in a philosophical bind: Tell us what you think God should have done instead. As if Jesus' example and life were not enough.
7. Ok-Earthquakes do that?
8. Why is it ridiculous to believe in one way? Sounds like you are picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you want to believe and which parts you don't. That is logically unsound. If you believe the God in the Bible is the One, then how do you rationalize questioning Him. Now, if you don't believe in that God, then that is a different question.
There may be bad ideas held by Christians-that doesn't make Christainity at fault, but possibly the Christian.
B-The Bible is not the only thing Christians refer. You are generalizing. It is, however, the only source for establishing Truth for Christians. If you were to familiarize yourself with the most powerful book ever, you would be in a great position to argue its faults that you claim it has. Seeking solely inside your heart will lead to different places at different times in your life and is therefore unreliable. However, if the Bible is used as guide...
Which flaws?
Stream... real quick. 1. correctly semantically put. When science makes conclusions about things happened in the past, then science comes about them through inference. But, that's really only a semantics argument. The point is, science over time eventually figures things out. A great example of that is these very computers we are sitting at.
3. I think you are correct on the literacy piece. The degree of literacy was much higher than 2%. I wonder what level it was actually at?
4. I think we agree in part
5. I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I have just never heard a "Christian" talk about their life during their proselitizing. Except when I've gone to church. The priest or minister is usually very good at talking about Christian priniciples and how they apply to their life.
6. see link above
7. You have no problem with having to choose the right path. What if you chose the wrong one? How do you know that you shouldn't be a muslim? How do you know you shouldn't be buddhist or sufi or jewish?
8. "If you believe the God in the Bible is the One, then how do you rationalize questioning Him." Good question. I do not believe the Bible is the word of God. When I say "the Bible was written by Men" I do not mean merely transcribed... I mean authored.
I do not believe that the description of God that the Bible gives is accurate.
BigBad-
1. Misunderstanding of science. Please see the "scientific method." This is assuredly NOT an argument of semantics. Inference can be drawn from anything observed, and that does not support nor deny conclusions: it is just not scientific. Operational science cannot determine things about the past. Just look at the last 100 years of any science and the abject hubris of the adherents...the certainty...the absolutism...and then, they are wrong. This is a big deal because it is different to say you believe something about the past vs. what is true about the past. The past is untestable.
2. I see where you think the atheists have good points about circular reasoning. I have not employed that singular line of reasoning nor do mission oriented believers. The Major and minor premises require belief and belief that, over time is buttressed by experience. If that was the only line of reason used to convince you, it would be circular. It has not been.
(It is important to note that you have made claims about the Bible and its veracity based on your own belief about it...not on empirical observation or data.) Circular reasoning is not necessarily a fallacy unless one or more parts of the argument are suspect. I would ask you again where your beliefs come from and you would circularly arrive at defending them as correct. (There is obviously more to it than that.) Incidentally, the arguments on that website are pretty easy to dismantle and Christians should be aware that atiests have good tools as well.
3. No way of knowing--just read a history of the Dark Ages. Inappropriate terminology for that time. Very intersting.
4. Yep
5. Correct. Sadly, the Christian messengers are not always the best t delivery. Myself included. When we are told to give testimony, Christians are often afraid of discourses like that of the Athiest website. We should tell our stories more often than worry about what others think of us--hicks, uneducated, etc. We have nothing to be defensive about, but we often times are. How do you appeal to spirituality with words on a keyboard.
6. above
7. God reveals Himself to all over their lives. So, today you may be sayingthings that strike you as absurd 5-6 years from now. Accepting (read: submitting) His will is a lifelong process involving constant battles. Thomas Aquinas said we must "resubmit every day." If I look into other religions and they ultimately do not make sense...Or, if I am fulfilled with my current place...
8. Ok-there's the rub. If it is only the word of man, then it has no more value than any other book. It would be full to the brim of utter absurdity if God did not guide and inspire those who wrote it. Your belief is in a very logically awkward spot: How on earth could a consistent and coherent religion be constructed from books with such disparate authors and disparate times?
What is the accurate desription of God and where do you get it?
Examples of divinity in my own life: -- how I turned out ok despite my family -- how I was not killed on my bicycle or motorcycle several times as youth and adult -- how when I ask for something from "God" and it comes from the bottom of my heart, and I'm specific about it, I really get it. -- lastly... how I met my wife.
Which wife? If you have been through many, you may have thought god matched you your wife when in fact it was satan. Maybe women are the works of the devil......
Streamlined - My morals stem from common sense, family, friends, the community at large - no set Foundation of Truth or written code passed down from others. Many with religion would argue that this leaves me with no morals - but I have managed to co-exist in society so far without descending into anarchy.
I don't agree that people who rely on a newspaper article or science are engaging in blind faith. Yes, there is an element of trust, but it is based on the knowledge of how newspapers and scientists work, namely with rigourous fact finding, and the ability to prove the source of their findings. This is faith, but not blind. Religious apologists on the other hand have truly blind faith, as there is simply no proof of the foundation of their beliefs ie. God exists, Jesus died for our sins, Mohammed heard the word of god, etc..
UnP-I would argue that as well. Where did your parents get them? Their parents? Keep going back and you get stuck. The fact that you have accepted some of societies norms has kept that in check and that is good. But, on the philosophical note: If my common sense, family and friends leads me to a different morality, which of us is correct? You have no standard upon which to answer that question.
Element of trust? No sir. Blind faith. Scientists and journalists are prone to human weaknesses and errors. So, it is absolute, unmitigated blind faith when you accept those sources on their faith. Scientists and journalists are not immune from the desires that would cause them to lie, mislead, deceive, etc to further a worldview or belief.
I agree with you, I have no root source for my morality if you go back far enough, no absolute written code of coduct. So? And if we disagree, again, so? That is not to say that I accept or believe in as my morality is superior to what you accept or believe. My morality is not based on any organized faith, but I do not hold it out as being in any way superior to any one else's. Which is a fundamental difference from those who develop a supposed moral code from scripture, which usually demands that you recognize the primacy of that particular moral code.
Sure, scientists and journalists are subject to human prejudices or bias. We are human - we do the best we can given human weakness. What other system would you suggest? Even if you take as a given that the bible or the koran is the absolute correct word of god, what about all the preachers, pastors, priests, etc. who interpret it and espouse any number of different views based on the same written words? They also bring to the debate their own bias or motives.
UnP-The point of bringing morality's source into the argument is to get here: If you have no source or foundation, then by definition it is not morality, just judgment. If my morality is different from yours then neither one of us can ever claim we are right or correct since we have no reference point. Recently I read an atheist said his source was reason...his own reason. If my reason leads to a different conclusion...please apply that to billions of people. Everything, then, is permissible and no moral argument can be made for anything.
It is an interesting thing that so many are afraid of absolutes in morality. I do not mean to be disparaging. It would be easy to say we are all just fine in our beliefs and whose to say what is right or wrong. That is fine. If you then can stand by and watch those who would put you to the sword try to gain power because they reasoned that the world would be a better place.
Yes, preachers and priests bring their particular biases to the debate. I am not asking anyone to believe them. I was just showing the same type of faith is required that you decry in religion.
big bad, I enjoyed your post. Often times Christians assume that their plan for their life is perfect for everyone. That is NEVER the case. What they fail to realize is that God's plan does not always include cute puppies and ranbows. It includes some of the most un-God like qualities you can think of. I have had an abortion and I do not regret it at all. What I did to get to that stage in my life has affected me more than the abortion ever could. I know to the women in the vid it would sound crazy for them to hear me say that was part of the "plan" for my life. This is the main reason these people make me mad. What has happened since then and especially when I did have children of my own might not have happened otherwise. Might not have is the important thing here, I wouldn't want it to have turned out any differently. It makes me sad to think that these people would want to have taken that away from me. The love I have for my children is only magnified by what I had to go through to get here.
thebigbadBudawolf hit it zziiiiiiip right in the target, the same words jesus spoke to me as he has spoke to many . ( God) is in each of us we need not seek God , we need only to open ourselfs and let God out. (LOVE). (Evil) in each of us and quite apparent from the looks of every thing going on around us. (Faith) something i can not see,touch and or feel it is what i have littel of that the above statements are true. and last you are smarter than that , to actually believe the world was formed only 10.000 year's ago . and before anyone of you debate any further that matter should be out for all to understand? how perhaps almost all scientific study, years upon years of research by men unquestionable and devote in thier professional
Rf-
There is no Christian doctrine that teaches God is in us and we need to let Him out. Where do you get that idea?
Please provide information that you know of that proves the age of the Earth, etc. Almost all scientific study has not come to an alternative conclusion. Some have, but you are appealing to majority rules. What do you, Randalflagg, know to assert the age of the Earth? How can science determine what it cannot test? That is a lot of blind faith.
Jesus wasnt a Christen he was a Jew, so any Christen text is nonapplicable to my relevance of beliefs. so to answer how i came upon this was simple, God told me in person!
the Earth was formed billions of years ago and that is the truth as God again has told me so . and since that is the truth and truth needs no defence why argue or even discuss it. we have Love in us and we show that Love . God is Love therefor we have God in us and we show God .... simple
The Flagg don't joke. O'kay, he doesn't always make sense either but what the hell. At least he types words that make sentences about things. Well, where was I, is that a dog, I love dogs. Damn ADD.
stream i assume you to be pulling my leg when you tell me the world was created 10.000 years ago , right ? yet you ask me to believe that, and some words some one told you was Gods word. you find it that hard to believe God speaks to me!!!!!!!!! im insulted.
The fact is choice is the answer. Each of us are responible to ourselves, noone else or God. We all have to live with our consequences. Not dictated by other humans who in this video apparantly dont have all the answers themselves. Thes people are naive. What kind of society will we become if one group of people impose there beliefs over others? I'll tell you a DICTATORSHIP. We all make choices everyday. Only problem is these religous types can't think for themselves and make there own choices. They let an outdated philisophical book do it for them. All one has to do is follow the ten commandments to live a good and respectful life towards others. If Moses didn't present them I'm sure most of us would treat others with goodness with out being told by "God" to do so!
billy, if you persist in sharing personal info (you've told us where you're from, what you do for a living, how old you are, how big you are, how many kids you have including a six year old daughter, etc.) then you're opening yourself up for ridicule (different opening up than you do for canuck). canuck by the way claims to be the cause of the stretch marks around your mouth
I can't believe I just read through all that. Whew. A few months ago I stumbled onto a link to a website called www.y-zine.com that quickly got my attention. What I read from one of the 2 magazines offered lined up well with the information I have found over the years from history and science. So I ordered a copy of each and began reading Y-JESUS at work. It was very well written, up-to-date, often humorous, and packed with bibliographies for extensive study. I've had a lot of questions over the years. There are so many religions and beliefs. How on earth do you sort fact from fiction? How can the Bible be written by men and yet by God? Who was Jesus? Did he really exist? Did he really say and do the things the Bible says he did? How can we know? What recent discoveries in archaeology and science back or disprove what textbooks and/or the Bible say? Answers to those type of questions were nicely compiled in one place--I love that. I got so much out of the first magazine, that I bought a copy for each of the graduating seniors I know. They have so many questions themselves. Just like I did at their age.
Randal, Randal, Randal...You must be so smart to know the age of the earth and have the backing of errant human beings. You must know the tests done, the observations, etc. You also must know that there is universal agreement about all of it, dating methods that are clearly perfect, and really no disagreement about the processes that lead to where we are today. You are putting an awful lot of blind faith in the people who study these things, R. I am pretty sure God speaks to you, Randal...just not sure you listen.
stream its so bizarre that you ask people to take a lot of what you say on"faith" that you derive from a text book written thousands of years ago . yet when so many learned men and women from all over and for so long have been saying the earth was created over a Billion years ago .SNAP i hear your mind close and your answer is ....my faith is lacking.... stream thats not an answer! my faith does lack. this i have said many times. i have very littel,much less in fact of that of a mustard seed and much less than thomas who(even) hung w/ my main man Jesus, and STILL he doubted!!!
stream let me ask you this . (drum roll please) are you now , are have you ever been a member of the communist party.... no just kidding ..
Queston do you believe the Holocaust was real and that the death camps of Auschwitz and Dachau or the others were real and part of world history. or do you believe other wise?
good morning all - i can't believe i scrolled through that whole thing. what a wild ride. who knew you could get into such a variety of subjects from a video about abortion? i can't help getting sucked into this when i have so many other things to do.
so many tripped up about why so much talk of religion, morality - why can't it be just another decision that a woman makes about her own body - much like "should i have a salad or the double cheeseburger today?"
so many tripped up about the presence of morality-talk within government. you want no talk of morality, ethics, or right and wrong in government? go to Cuba, or China. talk about absolutist regimes with thought police and beliefs thrust upon you. ask any Christian who lives in a Muslim nation what his views are about freedom of speech (if his tongue hasn't been cut out already).
So many tripped up on the inconsistencies between Christ and his followers - believe me, i trip up on my own fallen nature everyday. i saw a bumper sticker the other day that read, "Dear God, please save me from your people." sometimes i feel that way. please don't throw out the baby with the bath water. people who say they don't want to consider Christianity because of the way Christians act may have a complaint, but not a point. you want to know Christianity? read what Jesus said about what it takes to be a follower of his without all your preconceived baggage. which leads me to my next thought...
so many are tripped up on the reliability of the Bible. there are plenty of proofs of the reliability of scriptures much more than any other ancient document that modern scholarship stands beside. i don't believe history because i was there. i have no first hand knowledge, but there are several witnesses both Biblical and secular that agree with each other concerning archaeology, kings and kingdoms, and the life of Christ. the letters of Paul and the early church up through Constantine is an amazing testimony to the power of those who believed in a resurrected Jesus who taught love, peace, self-sacrifice, and truth. contrast that movement of historical Christianity with the way Mohammed spread his religion with the sword across northern Africa. i am so sick of people comparing Christianity with militant Islam. it just shows how ignorant some people are.
i don't know where i'm going here - it's just interesting that this debate runs so deep. if there is no God, i am my own - no one has mastery over me. i make my own morality (unless someone else's morality sends me to jail) if the God of the Bible is true, then he is creator and sovereign over all things - i am ultimately responsible to Him for my morality, behavior purpose, and joy. and that is what people are afraid of. if he's really there, i'll have to answer to him. i'm better off not knowing, not believing, but always wondering...
faith is not blind - completely. science does not have 20/20 vision. both creationism and evolution are taken by faith - both spring from a religion of their own.
Podman - you say true faith needs no proof, but it has already been proven. i won't hang my life on something that is purely subjective and has no roots in reality. and i welcome anyone who questions my relationship to God and my faith. it keep me wondering, learning, seeking, and humble. i know who i am, but i want to keep looking for who i'm becoming.
if you're asking if i believe that the Nazis had death camp where they killed nearly six million Jews, then my answer is yes. why would i question the evidence, the eyewitnesses, the photographs, the survivors?
please forgive me, but i don't really know where you're going with this
if you want to complete the box you have around me as a completely close-minded, ignorant, evangelical without a brain in his head, then yes. if i take the book of Genesis as literal truth (as Jesus did, by the way - take a look at how many times he quotes Moses in the gospels); if i do the math right as far as geneology in the Torah, then i come up with around 10,000 years. there are obvious questions here - distance of light from stars that are billions of light years away, etc. but even carbon-14 dating is not reliable past a few thousands years. determining radioactive half-life is an estimable science at best. and i question any scientist who takes three of four scattered bones in a dirt pile and somehow comes up with an entire animal, its social and reproductive habits, and tells me it happened around 200 million years ago because that's the presupposition someone else made.
sorry about the rant. got a little defensive there, eh? my bad.
no box!! i just want to be sure im not corresponding with white supremicist's thats all, so please dont take offense . the holocaust queston was my main queston the latter is .... well to your see an answer on the other matter im interested in. Jesus quoting Moses. like what ,im not here to change Moses law a eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but Verily i say onto you turn the other cheek? you mean he actually does chalange Moses law. (para phrased)
three or four scattered bones ! three or four, well then wooooooooooooooooooheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee lets get out the kickapoo joy juice we may as well kill all the brain cells. and i believe if any ones finding presumptions with anything thats written here they need only read what you non believers write.
ok, i need to repent a little for the rant - sorry about that. i've had people try to shove me in their preconceived boxes before.
no skin heads here - no worries. about Jesus quoting Moses, it was just the fact that he quoted Genesis alot - verifying its validity as God's word. he upheld the law, but he also spoke past the law. as in Matthew 5, 'you've heard that it was said to the people long ago...but i say to you..." he took laws against things like murder and adultery and got to the heart of the matter to things like anger and lust. he didn't challenge the law, but upheld it and took it to the spirit of the law.
as for the three or four bones, please allow me a bit of hyperbole and sarcasm :)
shoeless- I enjoy that bumper sticker as well, and the one I found for my fridge "I love God, it's his fans I can't stand"
Just a side note, Carbon-14 is used to date things such as ice age mammals
but there are other radioisotopes used to date older objects, such as those from the Paleozoic Era. Yes, carbon dating can only go back thousands of years. Potassium-40 is used for dating in the millions.
hey dream - thanks for filling in where i'm not so educated. it's been a while since i've read some of this stuff. science and faith need not clash all the time. it seems the landscape sure has shifted a bit to where there's lots more talk about intelligent design. the more you find out about life, the more complicated we find that it is, the more trouble some have trying to explain it as some cosmic accident.
as for the bumper sticker, i have to realize that i am sometimes the very thing i complain about.
im taking the ole camra out tomorow and interview some peope on the queston, (the age of creation) then i will post it on you tube under that very name. i will not be biased, or try not to be . and since i live in a multi-ethnic, religious and race community it should be fun to hear what thay think. this weekend will best actually .
Just so we are clear, I believe in God and I believe in his science. I think sometimes people just write science off simply because the scientists themselves don't give credit to God. When I watch shows like Nova and Nature or read magazines like Discovery or Scientific American, my awe for the creator grows exponentially. When contradictions come up I don't drop faith or science, I conclude that either the scientist doesn't have all the pieces of the puzzle or I remember that the % of information we are given in the Bible is so minute in regards to "creation" that anything is possible. We are talking about God, right?? ;-)
Chummin no need to get angry or throw names around . i asked the Queston because .... well i said why . and thanks for the answer i wanted to hear actually. shoeless understood . most if not all all Arien supremacist share the same veiw on the Bible as what im seeing here . and dont get that mixed up ! so to be sure who im addressing i will ask that queston. and for some resaon thay dont lie. at least about that. so now i know your not, and again thanks.
Wow-go away for a little while...
Glad you are back Shoeless. Calm, dispassionate...were it so that I could be. I am not immune to the sarcasm and bitter tones.
I am particularly fired up about the science turn that this discussion invariably takes. As a degreed biologist, I definitely have strong opinions about the nature of knowlegde and the nature of knowing. (Some here have taken the opinions of experts as good enough for them. It is one thing for an expert of cars to give a testable opinion about what is best for your Ford. It is entirely another to give complete trust to the opinions of experts about the untestable past.)
Randal-Whenever you give support for your opinion(s) by citing its agreement with others, you do not give support for the opinion...only for yourself.
I am glad that in this discussion, dating methods have come up. Glad for two reasons: (1) to illustrate what science can do and cannot do, and (2) show the roles of assumptions in our lives.
1) The scientific method, in a nutshell: Observe something-->form idea about that something-->test that idea (sometimes over decades and repeated by different people, etc.)--> repeat the cycle as a "process of elimination". So, this operation can be possibly the best way of knowing/understanding the world around us. However, it cannot know anything about the past. The past, by definition, cannot be observed and anything we say about the past must have some degree of assumption. (Some assumptions are unreliable based on supporting evidence of that time, etc. Some assumptions are very reliable based on the same reasoning. But, these are not scientific, they are logical.)
2) Assumptions-I would challenge evolutionsists (and I mean "natural selection as a means of adapting to random mutations as an explanation for the diversity of life" evolutionists) and creationists alike to find out what assumptions they are accepting as fact.
Carbon dating method: Assumes a uniformity of carbon concentrations in all previously living matter. (Plants discriminate against CO2 that contains C14.)(C14/C12 concentrations have not always been consistent.)
Other Isotope dating methods: Assumes we knew the starting conditions. Assumes decay rates have been constant. Neither of these things are testable.
So, in both examples, we must assume before we can test, in the here and now.
(As an aside, and I speak from first hand experience: There is a tendency for some scientists to throw away or "explain away" data that does not fit their model. This becomes very important when dealing with dating methods that do not yield consistent results...results that can even be orders of magnitude in difference.)
This sort of thing is extremely boring and I accept that. However, it was to illustrate again how much faith many people put in the unknowable (because they believed it to begin with) while decrying those who do the same thing.
Shoeless made one of the most important and fundamental statements earlier when he said that the real fear comes from the "what if God does exist and I am responsible" side of the coin and not the other.
Randal-of course there was a Holocaust. It is demonstrable. (although, I could be lying and really a white supremist, just to draw you into a debate.)
thanks for answering and please under stand those typs of men( or lesser the man) are out there , and you guys arnt them. (im truly happy to know)
the funny thing is stream is thay wont lie about that particular queston for i have known them and walked amongst them.
i spoke with God last night and it was let Known to me how egotisitical i have been on certain subject matters. also for myself to go take a camera out and ask the profound queston on the Age of creation .... God told me to go ahead but to check my motive's and that i dont have the answers so that i must keep searching. i said well what about those guys stream
(continuation) and Chummin n shoeless and God said what about them dont you think you have enough to deal with with out worrying abouthow your God and his other children are doing . then in a kinda loud voice God said Rand you better check yourself before you wreck yourself, then my wife woke me up to shut the windows for it started to rain pretty hard.
RF-yeah, I know they don't lie about that stuff...that was part of what I thought might be funny in my parenthetical note.
Keep searching, RF. We all are.
Peace
way to go, randal - that's all any of us can do. keep searching, stay open, stay humble. i read this morning that to quench your thirst you must take a drink. talking about drinking something only makes the problem worse.
well, my first attempt at posting anything on this site has proven interesting - extremely time consuming - but fun. see ya sometime.
Whoooo! What an interchange! Kudos to randal, stream, shoe, et.al. A well spoken, thought out, and civil exchange of thoughts on extremely controversial topics.
God exists....who was there before the Big Bang?
A cheeseburger and a baby, grouped in the same category of choice, is a horrendous concept. Abortion is the violent ending of a life. Not the mother's. Mothers are not incubators...they are mothers. Any notion that abortion might be a benign alternative to (pick one) embarassment, financial drain, negative social impact, or personal inconvenience, can be balanced by an understanding of what actually happens...a life is ended. Not an enlightened cultural option at all. Citing rape and incest is specious...less than one percent of all abortions result from such grievous events...the rest are "optional".
I find no conflict between my faith and science...my view is that the points of debate are almost always semantic. I believe the scientifically indicated eras of life...including the gradual evolvement of man. Just when God decided to interject life into our planet's mineral origins ("life.1"...plants), then upgrade that to the next version "life.2, animals", has yet to be charted. But that got the ball rolling in the right direction.
Darwin, in my opinion, was right. So is the bible. AND....while I believe I have the true religion, I also believe that anyone -yes ANYONE - who truly believes in a way of life, and then actually lives it, will earn him/herself a good afterlife.
Quite a discussion here. Really enjoyed the passion of stream and shoe and randal....thanks.
i like to watch t.v its a sport for me ,you know channel surf . three discover chan: science, national geo, and many more. some time ago i happened to be watching when worlds collide . it was both amazing and pretty scary. black holes Quasars and such. i was soon hooked then came somethin that brought me closer to God then anything ever before. lol sounds stupid but it was as you wrote above. the BIG BANG THEORY. that every thing all around me here on Earth and out there in space came from absolutely nothing. or even more so how dark matter( for ther lack of a better name) and subatomic particles bla,bla,bla LOL its was so overwhelming for my pea brain to begin to understand i decided there and then i believe in God. for that reason and that reason only . were also traveling thru space at something like million miles an hr. ...............
you know stream for me it would be more wonderful (and that word lacks the true nature of my feelings) if God did create everything through the Big Bang theroy that to me would be so.............. Godly
Rf- Yes, something from nothing. After all the astrophysical wrangling, after all the evolutionary theories, we arrive at a moment or event at which nothing exists and the all of a sudden...something exists.
Actually current theory has it as this. Two or more multidimensional membranes touch (BOOM) a big bang in each brane. It is now gathering strong backing with string theory that gravity is weak in this brane because it exists outside the brane and is weakly expressed within.
even more brilliance i am a quandary at all this, are universe being a three brane is all my knowledge on the subject seeing as i just looked it up on the Thesaururs lol. yet still from nothingness comes all the awe-inspiring magnificence . one just needs to look around themselfs to witness. and when i find my self in that moment, is truly then im closest to God.
To more points...I have a difficult time calling many of these things theoritical as they barely qualify as hypothetical. I have read a bit of brane and string theory. Theory requires some sort of observation. Strings and branes come from lack of observation.
My brane hurts. I think it needs wrapping in string.... relatively.
Interesting how an abortion piece gets onto the theory of the Big Bang....
Oh maybe it's not that far away given this is what got the mums in the position in the first place...
I've had the unlucky experience of being with a partner who wanted an abotion. I supported her absolutely as it was her body, it was a mistake, and we were in no way ready to commit to bringing a new life into the world when we both honestly knew we weren't committed enough to each other.
I am pro-choice as had we had to go full term we would have given the child up for abortion. And THAT I think is a worse crime than having an unwanted foetus aborted in the first place
Abortion leads to unwanted kids, unwanted kids tend to grow up in more disfunctional families, these kids grow up into disturbed adults, who in turn are more likely to have kids out of wedlock, so perpetuating the problem.
Think a guy called Levit made a good link between abortion and crime rates which made sense in a book of his called Freakonomics
Pro-life is fine as a concept but in an increasingly overcrowded world we really have to look at practical considerations as well as moral... And when it's a woman's body creating that new life I think she SHOULD have that choice.
That new life is nothing but a bunch of cells which, yes I admit, do begin to look human towards the later weeks before abortion is refused, but IMHO do not yet consitute a sentient being yet.
It is simply a part of the woman's body, and one which she should be in a position to demand the removal of for whatever her personal reasons may be.
And Chav - watch out when Streamlined gets onto his creationism soapbox. He's scary! ;-)
The problem with conception is that it is almost entirely in the womans control.
I think the whole conception thing needs to be addressed. Let's face it if there were a form of birth control for men that is as hidden as the pill there would be a lot fewer 'mistakes' in the whole pregnancy debate.
Actually I think if there were a pill that would cause permanent sterility in men, I think many men would take it.
I also think the society should not place the having of children as the 'proof' of adulthood. It would be better for society if maturity was measured in a different way.
Bring thine pick and shovel as there will be some digging required. He's buried in a cathedral somewhere in England. He was a VERY religious man, and stated he was a virgin to his death. He also calculated that the world would end around 2060! And believed in alchemy.
i was thinking on the same line of the (insane in the membrane) from the original topic of abortion, then almost at once arriving at the same conclusion. weird. pod, mako i am off to look and price a job, but i am looking forward to seeing all the nice responces that you will incur for the post above. LOL oooo000 when stream and those boys get a lookie at that , i believe it will make for great rebuttals.
I just read Mako say that having a baby and putting it up for adoption is worse than aborting it. If that doesn't sum it up, nothing will. I am so sorry that you had to face a decision like that due to your poor choices. I am more sorry that because of your inability to find a way for your child to live, you killed it. That is what breaks the hearts of people like me...that one could be so selfish as to think that killing a baby is better than finding it an adoptive family.
Stream - What is your view on artificial implantation. I have always wondered why natural conception is accepted in the same way artificial conception.
I don't really want to get into another deep religious discussion again here, but I have heard people thanking God for artificial conception. Don't you think that if God wanted them to have children He would have made it happen without all of the science?
I have no problem with artificial implantation, etc.. Human ingenuity that favors life does not strike me as iinconsistent. For example, there are those who believe that we should not use doctors to help cure us of ills. I disagree, of course. God uses all people.
Just because someone is infertile, does notmean they cannot raise kids. I also do not think that because someone isblind, we should not find a way to make them see. Jesus did.
OK - Pressing forward. You know that in many cases up to ten eggs are implanted to improve the odds of success. Sometimes all ten will implant and then they remove up to nine to improve the viability of the remainder.
In all cases it is better to remove some to save the mother and the remaining successful implants.
Knew your asanine and simplistic view of life would creep in here Streamlined!
You're so easily hooked on this debate aren't you? LoL
I'm intrigued here... Our 'poor choice' as you call it was to do what? Conceive a child whilst using contraception? Would you care to explain how and why that was a poor choice? Or would that just be known as something called bad luck given that our use of contraception therefore implies we had no desire to have children at the time...?
Please don't tell me it was God's will as that purely allows you to hide behind your faith without actually debating things properly
And constantly referring to a selection of dividing and developing cells as a child is slightly disengenous. I already stated that towards the end of the period when termination is considered 'allowable', the foetus DOES provide the appearance of a humanoid form, however to call it a child is not correct. It is still an unborn foetus. Get off your soapbox please, it's clearly a subject you're playing devil's advocate on for the sake of it - do you have kids?
Regards your language used, namely, the 'killing' of our unborn baby. Well, if that's how you wish to lable it then so be it... I think the term abortion or termination is used more widely, and your choice of the word 'killing' places you firmly in the context of the people in the video clip we're discussing here. I'd agree with you - yes, we killed cells that would have become a human being, nothing more, nothing less.
Have you ever put a loved pet down before? How did you feel then?
Even more anguishing - have you seen a loved family member dying of a terminal disease and actually been happy when their suffering was over - I think the mind set we're talking here may have something intangible in common with the mindset of people having to make the choice of termination or not.... I dunno
I note you make no mention of the Levitt article I spoke of before - you know the one that argues that increasing numbers of children born to parents who don't want them has interesting ramifications for society? Thought it might make you question your views in a way which could make you uncomfortable so don't worry - get back to me when you can on that one.
Interesting that you suggest how selfish we were to think that termination was a better thing for a foetus than bringing it into a world where that child might wait several lonely years for adoption, and miss out on the love of its true family in it's most formative years. Would you care to comment on the numbers of poor kids awaiting adoption - which was our main reason for not wanting to add to that figure? Or again would that make you question your own narrow views too uncomfortably? I think moral and practical maturity is a far metter measure of responsible parenting than any other...
I would far rather adopt/have a child at a time and a place in my life when I and my wife were able to care for it emotionally, spiritually and financially than have that burden (and YES it IS a burden no matter how pious you will no doubt sound on your reply) and risk being unable to practically carry it.
I take it that you have a desire to enforce all women when pregnant (whether through rape, whether that child will be born with a debilitating and painful illness or disability which will kill it / affect it's quality of life adversely or risk the death of the mother during childbirth) to come to full term and have a child they may not even want is barbaric and somewhat Dark Aged in outlook.
Also your point below about being in favour of AI but not being in favour of multiple implantations contradicts what you have said in the past about being a knowledgable scientist - you need MULTIPLE implantations for reasonable chances of success at AI otherwise you are effectively saying that only the very rich will be able to afford to visit for single implantations each time one fails.
You've not thoroughly thought this through have you?
Complex is right. Methods are reflections of goals and I do not claim to be in favor of all methods.
I personally, in an effort to have a child, would not be in favor of multiple implantations of fertilized eggs and then destroying the ones that do not take.
Mako-
Glad I struck a cord.
Your poor choice brought about by sick, sick reasoning: Killing a baby because you could not find a way for it to live healthily. Here's a very sensible couple of ideas since man-made contraceptions are not 100%: Don't have sex if you cannot handle the consequences or, have a plan in case she gets pregnant. Surely in this world, the life of another rises above your convenience threshold.
No such thing as luck, Mako...you had sex, you made a baby. It did not materialize from nothing.
A set of dividing and developing cells...if it is not going to be a human, what is it going to be? You earlier refered to it as a mass of tissue (or something like that). I know you really don't believe that. What other mass of tissue is made in that manner? Why not treat all embryos as cancerous tumors? You are at a loss as to what it is because for you the definition is always changing. It is either a human life or it is not...if it is not, what is it?
You may hide behind terms like abortion or termination...but, that is not facing he reality that a human life was killed.
Pet=human?
A loved one, who already had the blessing of being alive and then dying, is not the same as killing them before they have a chance. Please tell me you see the difference.
The Levitt article has an unintended consequence: engineering society in an attempt to not deal with its problems. Hey, why not be able to kill kids before they re 5 years old, if they do not match predetermined criteria of societal success? (See Pete Singer) No matter how you cut it, all these arguments are made by people who value their convenience over life...choose death of another over dealing with pain, displeasure and discomfort.
You are really showing your colors by asking the questions you are asking: Life is full of difficulties, Mako. Killing human life because they might not have perfect circumstances is sick. Please go read about the eugenics movement. You are advocating the same arguments...who is the arbiter of he perfect situations? (Hey--those poor kids awaiting adoption...you are clearly suggesting hey never should have been allowed to be born. So, why not put them out of their misery now?)
Wouldn't it be great if all babies came at the perfect time. Yes, married couples should try to have their "blessed burdens" at the best times. Sometimes providence intervenes.
M-if I believe that we should not kill innocent human life, then yes. I would rather see babies born and the millions of infertile people who would like to adopt, could. However, when the baby's birth endangers the life of the mother, a different set of criteria is needed to determine the best course of direction. As it stands, that is an infinitessimal number of pregnancies and public policy should not determine that...mother, father, family, doctors...that's who decides.
Quick answer: I do not know what God uses explosive vest-wearing Islamists for...I am not God. I just know that if it happens, He allowed it and it fits into His plan. We are not privy to the details. That is what Faith is for.
Obviously we're diametrically opposed on this argument, and we're not alone in this given the threads above, so I guess the easy way is to try and define HOW it is we're opposed given that we both believe so strongly in WHY we're opposed.
Here's my attempt and I'd welcome your views on it:
1. You reiterate the term 'poor choice', which I assume you mean to be both the decision to have sex and also to terminate? On the former, c'mon, we were both 17!! Teens do that kinda thing. I know it’s not a morally high brow excuse. It’s a truthful one! On the latter we were both in school and without jobs. We felt it was the best decision. Actually she did. And I maintain her right to decide. I'm afraid nothing you say will sway me on that.
You stated that we had no plan for IF she got pregnant. No, we did not as we (being teens) assumed the contraception would work. Hindsight gives you a wonderful view does it not?
However, following this bad luck event (your faith tells you this is something different, I disagree), her plan was to undergo a termination and in retrospect I am very glad that option was made available to her, for all the reasons I outlined previously.
2. You constantly use the term killing a child. I use the term aborting an unborn foetus. One is certainly more emotionally ignition-worthy than the other. Our point of difference is that I certainly don't believe it is a child. It is not sentient. It IS part of the mother and ultimately SHE must have the choice to decide whether she wants it to be a part of her. Not you. Not state. Not God even.
I guess the key issue is the old one... namely at what point does a foetus turn into a human? Currently the law varies by a few weeks either way. If you don't like that then change it. We've had discussions on legalities in the past! I urge you to change the law then.
If we'd terminated AFTER the legal time frame at which the foetus is considered viable, OR if she'd given birth and then we'd strangled it, then yes, it would be a child and it would be murder or killing. We didn't. It wasn't.
3. Again you say a human life was killed. Once more a fairly inflammatory description. My view is that I prevented a potentially unhappy human life from starting. In my view I didn't kill a human being. I killed cells, AND I'll say again - It was NOT a sentient being, much less a child at the point of termination (which in our case was about 8-10 weeks in if I remember correctly). Again, we acted within the law. And that law is there for a purpose.
4. Why is my definition changing? It isn’t. You keep saying this. Not sure where you get this from.
5. I am not hiding behind terms like abortion or termination. I use those terms because those are the words used. I say again, if I was attempting to abort a child past the viable cut off, or strangled it at birth then yes, killing as a term can be used. We didn’t. You’re the one so keen on using it
NEVER ONCE have I advocated the killing of children ALREADY born.
NEVER ONCE have I advocated the removal of the right to exist once you are a living, sentient, breathing, human being. Or past the viable legal state at which abortion can take place
For you to suggest I say otherwise shows a desperate grabbing of straws here.
I HAVE advocated the right of the woman to choose whether or not to use her body to BEGIN to breathe life into the bundle of cells she carries around within her. And by that I mean REAL life. Following the full pregnancy through, to create a vital being which experiences, feels, loves, tastes, touches and LIVES. Not an unborn foetus prior to the date of viability.
I will continue to advocate this. And YOU have no right WHATSOEVER to tell a pregnant woman what to do with her body. Simple.
Where YOUR rights DO come is when your parter becomes pregnant and you decide to take whatever route you take. I will not begrudge you, nor will I try to stop you. It is your choice. No one else’s.
6. Totally agreed that humans don’t = pets. But in terms of the suffering of a love one ended at death I was trying, somewhat clumsily, to draw an analogy to the way people may feel emotionally in situations like bereavement after suffering / ending an unplanned pregnancy etc…
You said’ “A loved one, who already had the blessing of being alive and then dying, is not the same as killing them before they have a chance. Please tell me you see the difference”
I do see the difference. One has BEEN ALIVE. The other has been terminated BEFORE they had the chance to be alive. THEREFORE NO LIFE WAS TAKEN. It was prevented.
With regard to the unborn foetus, I would strongly argue that level of emotional attachment, although certainly there in some cases, has not yet evolved or developed to be as strong as that of ‘a loved one’ as otherwise most women would NOT be able to carry out the procedure, and nor would most of their partners want them to do so.
In other words, they WERE NOT ALIVE. Thanks for helping to make my point for me.
Once again you talk of a life ‘killed’ in an inflammatory way. I wish I could see the world as black and white as you do.
7. Levitt’s article doesn’t in ANY WAY endorse a view on abortion one way or the other. He makes it dispassionately clear. He simply states that crime rates plummeted in those areas where abortion was legal, and investigates the social reasons why. It simply deals with the harsh realities of life, and how that life impacts on the human beings who live it in the context of children born under a system which outlaws abortion. I am sure holes can be picked in it, but from where I stand I think he makes an interesting point.
8. For those poor kids in adoption. IN NO WAY did I say that they should never have been born. No way at all. Please let me know where I said that?
What I DID say was that WE as a couple did NOT want to add to the number of kids already living without parents able to care for them. Remember this is about choice as well as life. OUR choice was this route and WE made the right choice for ourselves, and ultimately the right choice in choosing NOT to begin the development of life.
You would have made a different choice. And that is fine.
Your position seems to be saying you WOULD prefer to add to the number of kids living without parents in a position to care for them? This seems incredibly cruel to me Streamlined. And especially thoughtless given the current system of foster / adoptive childcare is so overloaded and undermanned in many countries.
9. Yes it would be great if babies could come along at the perfect time. And that is why you and I are in agreement that AI is a good thing. Not least because it allows parents who may not be able to conceive naturally to still enjoy the chance of children.
However, it seems that you would prefer it to be limited to the rich people who can afford to visit the clinic for individual implantations. And in so doing arguing for social engineering by virtue of financial clout. Nice one.
How about when pregnancy comes along at an IMPERFECT time? Here is where we disagree because you don’t feel that the initial stages of the pregnancy are those during which the MOTHER alone should be able to make the choice. You feel you should intrude.
9. Thanks for anser regards explosive vest wearers.
Guess it lead me to another question...Why did God allow us to find a way to conduct terminations?
Well following your lead I’m guessing it happened. He allowed it to. It fits into his plan and we are not privy to the details. Perhaps that’s what your faith is for?
Sorry S - meant to ask what, as biologist (I appreciate not an paediatrician or midwife!) do you think SHOULD be the times and places where termination can occur?
Surely as you say a loved one, a mother say, who already had the blessing of being alive and then dying, is not the same as killing the unborn child before it had a chance?
Should the mother therefore be allowed to die in favour of the baby being born then? It would seem so if I follow your logic?
M-I need to make clear, as Christians sometimes do not: I am not judging you. I am no better than you and in no position to judge you. However, it is imperative that we judge actions and words. It is important for you to know that we are both broken and frail human beings, no better or worse than the other. As I check myself, I have to ask-did I chastise in love? Not always. But I will get better, God willing.
I have a real issue with those who say the pregnancy is a consequence or punishment for bad behavior. That is a very poor choice of words seeing as usually only one person really gets the "punishment", the woman. I'll use this analogy: I have a cure for AIDS, but it is only available to those who contracted the disease due to rape and incest. Those of you who just couldn't keep your pants on, SOL. Those of you who shared needles, SOL. Those of you who had sex with the same gender, SOL.
Besides that, this is not American Idol, why should you and 200 million other people get to have a vote on what I do with my body? I don't get to vote on what you do with your life, and I wouldn't want to.
D-consequence is not necessarily a punishment. No one is saying what you suggest. (I am definitely not saying pregnancy is punishment, but it is without a doubt a natural consequence of sexual activity.) Who said punishment? You analogy is not applicable here.
Society has always had a say over what one does with their body...when it impacts another; like taking a human life. You know this is not simply a matter of what to do with your body.
M
This is truly instructive and I am glad to have this discussion.
Before I go with your bullet-pointed arguments, I want to make a few larger points. The choices made by everyone are never, at the time, believed to be "bad". We have a limitless ability to rationalize or behavior while not using that same rationale in other situations. So, as the talented Mr. Ripley said, "No one (wants) to believe that they are bad or do bad things." It would simply be too much to bear at the time. Second, our abilities to maintain denials of our wrongs do not exclude forgiveness and humility...but, they can. Empathy about our pasts is not the same thing as justifying our pasts.
Now...
1) Yes...poor choices on both counts. As teenagers, when we get undesirable results, we are by our very natures, more concerned with how it impacts US and are rarely concerned with doing the right thing. We will move heaven and earth to avoid certain types of punishments. That doesn't excuse the decision, it only explains it.
Of course it is not her right to decide. You helped create it. So, you are involved. Society may be picking up the tab for this new life...so, society vis a vis the govmnt has a voice in this decision. Please quote me on this: "It is absurd to believe that a woman has a singular right to abort a baby for whatever reason." (more on that later.)
Luck presumes some things that you should look into.
2) (This will encompass many of your other bullet-points so I won't re-type too much later.) I asserted that you keep changing the argument and more to the point, that which you define as point of no return...and you do, a lot.
At one point, you seemingly argue for "viability" as a defining point. At another point, you argue in favor of sentience. At others, the tissue is just a mass attached to the mother and not a child. Mako- which is it?
Science has ruined the viablity argument because foetuses can now, through, medical advances remove a baby earlier and earlier in a pregancy.
Sentiency is more a philosophical point and science cannot ascertain it.
(I find that those two arguments appeal to people's less gruesome sensibilities since people don't want to bear witness to killing human life that looks like a baby. As long as it doesn't look like a baby, it isn't as disgusting.)
So, we cannot make a moral argument for or against abortion based on sentiency or viability. So, you are left with the question I have now asked you twice: If you are not killing a human life, what is it? (I am not being trite. It is clearly not just a simple lump of tissue nor is it a child. You are in a difficult spot...the law may decide a point and science may contribute, but only morality has a fixed place of reasoning: It is human life and we do not get to take it wantonly.)
3) There is no disputing that a human life was killed. I am sorry you do not like the language. (If not human life, then what? If not killed, then what?)
4) answered in context above
5) Why not kill a child at birth? Why not 5 minutes after birth? Why not at 5 years old? I am afraid that you misunderstood my question referncing Pete Singer. If you are willing to abort a human life in order to avoid possible future unpleasantness, why not apply that across board. (Heck, some of the world is doing the same things with the elderly...as soon as their life has pain and WE don't want to bear it, we think killing them is better. Sick.) That is why I asked those very appropriate questions. You may not have directly asserted those things, but you have, by implication, supported arguments for them.
Again, what is that fixed date of viability?
I have every right to argue for what a woman does to her body. You arenot a child and should not make absurd arguments. ALL LAWS tell people what they can and cannot do to theirs and others bodys. Simple.
(I continue to assert that you chose to kill a human life to avoid dealing with unpleasant consequences for yourselves and then rationalize it that you are doing that foetus a favor by not bringing it into a world where it might struggle. Where did I go wrong in that summation?)
6. Not before thay had a chance to be alive, Mako...I meant, before they had a chance to "live": feel, experience, choose. Again, it is not just a mass of cells. In fact, the only other place where that terminology is used is in oncology.
7. Yes, Levitt's article does imply that when YOU use it to support your position. You posited that it was better to kill the foetus rather than put it up for adoption (I guess because adoption circumstances are worse than death) and you cited that article as support.
8. No, you implied it. It is really simple. (Paraphrase)"I chose to abort a foetus, in part, because adoption life is worse than death. To show support of that decision, here is an article showing you how awful things are for unaborted life."
My position is: (1) The cruelty lies in your above-stated reasoning. (2) It is further illogical to assume that a society where abortions were illegal, would only have negative effects. That discounts the role of private and church organaiztions along with the now proven stats that pregnancies would voluntarily go down...so, the numbers of people seeking abortion would diminish, reducing the role on scoiety. (3) In the US, this would play out in each State and would further reduce the overall burdens of unwanted pregancies.
When the same people who advocate a woman's sole right to choose want to withdraw their support for all welfare and all federal medical aid, THEN they can claim I have no say-so in the decision.
9. You are right. I am advocating that people who can pay for their visits to the clinic for AI be the ones who receive it. I know that many people want things in life (and even feel entitled to them), especially when others will pay for it, but not me. Apparently, that is what you are saying.
Again, you are right. The mother alone shouldn't make those decisions. By the way, you are not advocating that either. Previously, you asserted the father's role. In the same peice you advocate other people's role through funding. M-It is never nor will it ever be the sole right for a woman to choose. That is a politically rhetorical argument to get votes.
10. Vest wearers: Why did God allow us to find a way to conduct terminations? Please ask God. Why did he allow anything, M? What is your point? We are not entitled to know why God does anything...We may, at various points in lfe, find a peace as to God's plan(s). But, we are not entitled to know the answer when we ask.
Last point...Good question. We have already mentioned the difficulty in dealing with choices since the morality may be crystal clear but our ability to carry it out is shrouded in emotions, rationalities, fear, doubt, etc...all of which we do not like to face and cannot face alone.
Abortions are periodically necessary when the mother's life is endangered or the baby's condition is beyond repair. (This is between a doctor, the mother, the father, etc.) All states carry provisions for this and I see nothing inconsistent in it. The ultimate decision still carries risk for the decision maker who might not get the result desired. Your follow up questions are too simplistic, M. A mother may wish to risk the birth even if it jeopardize her life. No scenario I have ever heard from anyone, except for a certain segmentof social engineers, would force the decision.
I really do suggest reading about the eugenics movement and the compassionate arguments made by its advocates. Abortions and forced sterilizations were couched in very deep empathetic tones. The only plce that type of argument still exists is in the pro-choice crowd.
A decent response needs a decent reply - gimme a little time!
Do bear in mind though my base position would seem to suggest that a lot of the views you propose above, whilst eloquently put, won't sway me.
Namely, you fervently believe it is killing a life, and you hold that position very strongly whilst telling me that sentience can't be proven. Fair enough
I believe it is the prevention of one starting. And I also believe that when the termination is carried out legally, it is nothing more than the removal of, or killing if that's the language you wish to use, of human cells from the uterus. In this respect, I say again, it is nothing more than the prevention of a human life from beginning.
This we can debate for eternity but it will do no real good.
I guess the fundamentals remain: as long as the law exists to allow termination, and as long as that termination is carried out within the agreed and legal timeframe, no one is doing anything wrong.Period
Like you've said before to me, if you don't like the legalities then change the law. I'll await it's ratification.
Also regards my follow up questions being too simplistic I would suggest that given they were grounded in the statements you made about the living having already lived whilst the unborn hadn't had the chance, it would seem to me that those statements must therefore be a little simplistic too.
The eugenics movement is a very extreme version of social engineering and you are once more being disengenous in suggesting that this is what I propose. It is not.
Finally in the context of faith, if we are not allowed to question the whys and wherefores of what your God has allowed us to discover then so it follows that terminations are a legitimate addition to our knowledge base and this knowledge has been provide to us for a reason by Him. Unquestionably.
So if your arguments are taken to a logical conclusion, God approves and the law is on the side of those who wish to exercise choice.
You are right, we should not question it. We should accept it for it must be part of God's plan. These are your words not mine (paraphrased)
Ok... Well i have read all the comments and there are lots of valid points! I'm not here to dispute any of them... How ever... As a person who has had an abortion, this is how i feel about it... i dont condone it but there are lots of diffrent circumstances. if a person is rapped, should she be forced to have the child if she doesnt want it?? if her father got her preg. again should she be forced to have it???
These people who are so against it they have no answer to the prob. All they can say is its wrong and they are going to hell. Not to make this about religion, but Who are they to judge me or any one else for their choices in life??? My God will judge me for my sins when the time comes!!
I think that this issue will be an issue in our society for many yrs to come. We can sit here and talk about it till we are blue in the face but it is what it is and even if it some day be comes illeagle it will still happen.
Guess sometimes the conversation needs to be had (interminably and until blue in the face :-)) with people like this so they understand that an opposite view may exist.
M-the reference to the eugenics movement is neither trite or disengenuous. The history of that movement is important. We finally arrived at the morally unacceptible place of forced sterilizations and selective breeding...but only after some ofthe arguments gettng there were accepted. You have already accepted a major tenet of the eugenic faith...destroy human life so if may not have to suffer or have a less than fulfilled existence.
I have not accepted the major tenet of the eugenics argument at all. Not sure why you keep bringing it up.
Once again you wish to use inflammatory words like kill, destroy etc in the context of eugenics and this discussion
As I mentioned previously my base position is that I feel it to be the prevention of HUMAN life from STARTING.
This is not the same as ENDING one. Or destroying or killing a human.
As has also been made clear previously I obviously also draw a distinction between foetal and human life. These are different stages in our own biological metamorphosis and you of all people should be aware of that. No need to drag up the sentince / viability stuff again as we've been through it all and as you say the sentience is unprovable and viability is legally determined.
I simply hold my base position and find much of what you say here to be a little simplistic. Ideals are a good thing to hold. I salute you.
Be careful of the route those ideals may take you down if you follow them without care for the ideals of others.
M-This will be short, I promise...
"as long as the law exists to allow termination, and as long as that termination is carried out within the agreed and legal timeframe, no one is doing anything wrong.Period"
That is what you said and I know you do not believe it. Legality has never necessitated moral right or wrong. Laws can be changed, not morality.
I never said we are not allowed to question God's whys and wherefores...just that we are not entitled to the answers...particulary right then and there.
Your reasoning isn't, M. "Allow" does not equal "Approval" and they are not interchangeable. I have drawn the distinction before. God allows humans, through their own choices, to do things. He has been crystal clear what he disapproves. Yet, He still allows.
So, no, it does not follow that adding to our knowledge base legitimizes abortions any more than it legitimizes murder.
You know I don't believe it... What on earth gives you thaqt impression. Erm... no.
As a pro-choice advocate I absolutely believe it. I believe in the word of law.
That... is... what.... the.... law... .is...there.... for - unless you wish to advocate the wholesale breaking of said laws, and also to advocate an appropriate punishment for those women who undergo, or those doctors who perform terminations?
If HE allows it why on earth should YOU have the temerity to question it and expect an answer?
As YOU have said before:
He allows it.
We are not entitled to know why
He has enabled us to discover how to perform the operation.
We are not entitled to know why.
Guess you've just gotta deal with it as it's His will.
The Law allows it too so but yet you say this does not warrant approval. Fine from a legal standpoint but you are questioning the morality of God's Will by bringing up the legal versus moral issue
We'll never agree on this one Stream. And I think you'll continue to back yourself into a corner if you go on...
Mako-
From superficially well-reasoned to duncedom in two posts.
The law makes it right, according to you. So, how's that stance on US and illegal wars working for you? Since the war is not illegal, it must be right...according to you.
I keep bringing the eugenics movement up for you to look into. I know you will not because it would cause you to face some very unpleasant realities of what you advocate. Still, I bring it up, because I am familiar with the arguments they used to gain public support...and you are making one of those arguments. It's the put-them-out-of-misery preemption argument.
Stopping a life before it starts? Ok. When does it start? I have already shown this to be faulty reasoning because science keeps moving viability back and philosophy cannot answer sentience. Tough spot to be in, P.
But, hey...seeing how you treated me on the "fascism" post, I am not surprised at your inability to reason.
Our relatioship with God unfolds over time and is also a metamorphosis just as you called foetal development and human life different stages in a metamorphosis. So is infancy into childhood. So is adolescence into adulthood. You have no point, M. Nothing to anchor a belief upon.
I am sorry for coming off as angry, M. All of you pushed the wrong buttons with me on the other post. It showed the debasement of your arguments.
S- I've no doubt you're angry - probably more at yourself than anyone else but c'mon, you don't need an alias. To try and bluster your way out is also reprehensible. You're not really holding any moral high ground right now so a little humility is perhaps in order
Erm... I believe the war is illegal. Not changed my stance on that. Not a clever argument, nor a relevant one for this thread. You may want to hide behind your constitution. I'll look at international law in a wider context and I know you won't respect that. That's ok. Your administration will be judged accordingly.
Remember I'm thinking slightly bigger picture than you seem to be. Anyway, keep on track for this thread will you.
I understand what you are trying to do in bringing eugenics into it but that is moot. Eugenics as you rightly pointed out, was something that the world understood was a step too far. And I agree.
Consequently the movement gained no further traction but some elements of it stuck. Again I see that.
What you seem unable to grasp is that what happened there was human and societal evolution at work... developing; adopting or discarding those facets of itself that it sees as workable over time. You obviously disagree fundamentally with many facets of current society let alone what eugenics stood for.
However to suggest that I espouse the complete social engineering concept as defined by eugenics is ridiculous and shows you to be attempting to shift what you feel my argument SHOULD be, away from what it is. Namely that I don't believe I was killing a human life.
I am not advocating a 'put them out of their misery' argument. If you recall I was talking about my own personal experiences and beliefs based on something relevant to me and my partner at the time.
We... once again...getting bored of this now... were preventing a human life from beginning.
You were the one who instigated the debate using provocative and frankly simplistic language
Interesting that you have not commented on the fact that you support AI on a single implant basis. Thereby precluding thousands of potential parents from being able to have children via the more economical multiple implant method normally required for successful impregnation. Here, as I said before - you're advocating social engineering by virtue of financial clout.
Your question on when life starts. Ok here it is. My belief:
Human life starts at the point at which science and the law determines a foetus to be viable. There is nothing illogical here. Prior to this point I will call it a foetus, a cluster of human cells.
And yes, if you want me to say it, I advocate very stongly that people should be given the choice to terminate, kill, abort that foetus or cluster of cells if they feel they must. Do remember here that even pro-choice people do not take this decision lightly.
It sometimes seems to me that you attempt to portray pro choice advocates as people who would happily rush up and rip open the stomachs of all pregnant women at the first scent of amniotic fluid.
Regards sentience, I agree, it is unproven when that begins, but rest assured you will struggle to find many people who truly remember anything that happened to them in the womb. Therefore we can philosophize and pontificate as much as you wish.
However to attempt to at least respond with a fact, and to give you my belief based on this fact, it's during the second trimester that motor functions begin to work at approx 4 months.
This to me suggests the beginning of brain function. Frankly whether this also reflects conscious sentient thought and being, I very much doubt, but we are talking my belief and it is here that I believe a ‘life’ begins. Consequently if abortion is being considered then obviously the earlier the procedure is carried out the better.
However before you jump on me with more 'baby killer' rhetoric, remember, I still advocate the rule of law in the context of abortion. And I am obviously still pro-choice.
To whit:
1. if the law exists to allow the procedure
2. sentience is not provable and
3. science has determined viability whatever this may be (remember I was much younger than I am now and at the time viability was considered to be 24 weeks - I think it may now even be down as early as 12 weeks in some European countries)
...Then we were doing nothing wrong by our, I say again, OUR, not your moral code. Remember I do not follow your God. And yes my absolutes are grounded in common decency based on how I was brought up and what I learned of right and wrong.
If you go down your favored little diversionary path and request me to list my own moral code of absolutes, you’ll make me laugh. It is the inate decency in developed human beings that sees us not killing each other in the street... most of the time. That is what I live by
Your arguments are rendered illogical and moot.
Incidentally this is a quite interesting. It may allow you to see the inanity of your proclamation of absolute knowledge in the context of when human life is deemed to exist at point of conception
It seems that where things get stuck is with people's religious views. Again, religion causing problems.... it's a bitch of a thing hey?
I asked you why your God allowed us to garner the knowledge to carry out the procedure. You replied:
**"Please ask God. Why did he allow anything, M? What is your point? We are not entitled to know why God does anything...We may, at various points in lfe, find a peace as to God's plan(s). But, we are not entitled to know the answer when we ask"**
Ok - we are not talking about God allowing 'anything' S. We are talking about abortion. Stay on point
My point is that with all your rhetoric about this and that being God's will, you seem incapable of admiting or even considering the possibility that abortion may also be God's will. He may not consider it 'killing' as you are so fond of saying
Now if this were to be the case, then it is YOU that is questioning God's will
I'll reiterate what I posted earlier:
If God allows us to know how to conduct terminations why on earth should YOU have the temerity to question it and expect an answer?
As YOU have said before:
We are not entitled to know why
He has enabled us to discover how to perform the operation.
We are not entitled to know why.
Guess you've just gotta deal with it as it's His will.
The Law allows it too so but yet you say this does not warrant approval. Fine from a legal standpoint but you are questioning the morality of God's Will by bringing up the legal versus moral issue
I'm a little tired with this thread now. I have told you what personally happened to me many years ago as a 17 year old. I also have given you my views which admittedly have been strengthened and clarified by hindsight. You are wanting a head to head because you feel you can prove some kind of mental and moral superiority. No doubt you will crow when I leave you to it – there are other more funny threads to view…
I know you want to be seen as some moral champion, but frankly the fact that you need to post with an alias to give you credibility, means to me that you are a little untrustworthy and are yourself looking to be popular.
You believe morally we were in the wrong. That's ok. You are thankfully not me and vice versa.
We are not going to create an answer to this moral and ethical quagmire here, but perhaps the relatively level headed nature debate coupled with the diametrically opposed views we both hold means there’s hope!
Good bye, Mako
You have proven yourself to be unreasonable and illogical. Anyone who gives a currsory reading of our discourse, whether they agree with you or not, can only conclude likewise.
The law and science determine for you what is right and wrong. I am astonished that you allow others to do your thinking...wait, not astonished. Why would I expect any less? Seems like someone has been doing your thinking for some time.
I have never said when human life begins but I have shown you that your beliefs about it are inane. Your argument surrounding God's will is so absurd and sad, M. It is much like the atheist who asks the illogical question, "If God is all powerful, could he make a rock so big even He couldn't lift it?"...thinking the whole time he has just scored points. That is how you sound. So, your conclusion...maybe abortion is pat of God's will because He doesn't see it as killing.
That is two times you have delved into the ridiculous to prove...nothing.
I wish you well, Mako.
I have been no more or less illogical here than you.
I have certainly not been any more unreasonable than you. In fact in terms of language and inflammation of that language I would say you're really trying hard to fire up the rhetoric
I simply hold a different position to you, and you're pissed that I'm not bowing to your self-percieved greater wisdom. You're a little self delusional here
M-Thought you weren't going to return? I knew you couldn't stay away.
I am in no way angry at you for disagreeing, M. In fact, it seems the real anger is from you.
(Your last 3 little posts speak volumes about you, M. Thank you, child.)
Mako100-- You make such a great point that i think some people dont think about. Streamlined keeps saying "killing" and that bothers me! Like you said even pro-choiceers dont find it an easy choice. I DONT think this should be used as a birth control method. but in some cases i think its ok. And my God has 4given me! I now have 2 beautiful children that i can afford adn dont have to live off welfare bc i waited. Life is good!!
Let me answer the questions. Should abortion be legal or illegal? ILLEGAL
What should the punishment be for abortion? THE DEATH PENALTY!
These abortion protesters should only be protesting abortion for 1 reason: It is MURDER. What is the just punishment for murder? The swift and painful DEATH PENALTY.
Makes sense dave....not. Murder people for committing murder to prove that murder is wrong. Why not just kill all the stupid people first and that will have a dramatic effect on the occurrences of abortion? At least it will get rid of the protesters and that’s a good start.
Once again, the future rocket scientists have answered the questions we have with such clarity. God has got to be pissed from all this bad PR. Slack-jawed idiots that have no clue as to the depth of their cause are the ones barking in the mic. Sad, really really sad.
Comments (279)
To post a comment, you need to login or signup.