 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5703
Location: Memphis
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| theseldomscene wrote: | | no it is not...quite crying and go have it done... |
Did you not notice the first part of what I said?
| theseldomscene wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | are you saying it's okay to mutilate babies because they won't remember it? |
yeah!!!...it is a lot better than needing it later in life and having to remember it...  |
So would it be excusable, say, to rape babies? They won't remember it, right, because they're just babies!
Complications from circumcision is responsible for a disturbing number of deaths in newborns (at least one in five hundred thousand newborns suffers a circumcision-related death in the US), as well as long term side effects: "urinary fistulas, chordee, cysts, lymphedema, ulceration of the glans, necrosis of all or part of the penis, hypospadias, epispadias, impotence and removal of too much tissue, sometimes causing secondary phimosis." Further, according to the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the penis itself is unrecoverable in 1 of a million cases (that's the actual statistic). Their page on circumcision complications.
| theseldomscene wrote: | | like who?...i have never meet a circumsized man who resent his parents for it... |
I'm one. It's not an obsession or anything, but the resentment is there.
| theseldomscene wrote: | | read a book and learn...so you don't look as uninformed as you just did... |
The only real "problem" is smegma, which is easily taken care of with good hygiene. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="FFT] | Quote: | | Did you not notice the first part of what I said? |
remind me...i may have missed it due to carelessness...
[ | Quote: | | So would it be excusable, say, to rape babies? They won't remember it, right, because they're just babies! |
this is dumb fft...
that is really not that bad consider the effects of not doing it...
[ | Quote: | | I'm one. It's not an obsession or anything, but the resentment is there. |
ooohhh please... 
| Quote: | | The only real "problem" is smegma, which is easily taken care of with good hygiene. |
no sir...i will try to look it up tomorrow and show you...if i can figure out how to scan the book and get the pages neccessary into the computer... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Does circumcision affect sexual pleasure, and does it have any benefits that might make the quite low level of surgical risk, like bleeding and infection, or possible discomfort even with anesthetic, worthwhile? And, if you are already one of the majority of men in the United States who are circumcised without being asked, are you missing out on anything of consequence? That’s our question. What I want to focus on here today is the widespread belief of some people that men with a foreskin get more pleasure from sex than men who have been circumcised. Now the basis for this belief has not in the past been scientific, just like the basis for circumcision has not been scientific in the past. And that’s because data have been really hard to obtain, since most men have not been in the position to experience participating in sexual behavior with and without their foreskin. Obviously – since it’s done early in life. There was a kind of logic, I think, to the position that it might be better to have a foreskin, because the foreskin covers the most sensitive part of the penis, that is, the head or the glans of the penis. And it seems logical to believe that this covering would protect that sensitive part of the penis from irritation and perhaps keep it more responsive for the times that it’s uncovered during sexual activity. I mean that seems to make sense. And also, being that the penis is one of the most – well, perhaps the most highly valued part of many men’s bodies, or every man’s body, it was not surprising that the thought of losing even a very small part of it would be considered negative. And finally, the fact that many men have a major concern about the size of the penis, the loss of even a millimeter of it would certainly not be construed as moving in the right direction. So we can understand that there would be a concern about removing any part of it, and removing this part that covers the most sensitive part.
So, we have three very recent studies that have addressed this question, about the possible changes in sexual satisfaction after circumcision in adult men with sexual experience. And these are quite new studies. The first was conducted in 2002 in the United States, and it questioned 15 adult men about the details of their sexual lives prior to undergoing circumcision. They were assessed on their sex drive, their erections, their ejaculations, their sexual problems, and their overall sexual satisfaction. The average age of these subjects was almost 37 years old, and they were asked again about these same aspects of their sexuality a minimum of three months after the circumcision took place. The researchers found that there were no differences before and after the circumcision in the men’s reports on their sex drives, their ejaculations, their erections, their sexual problems, or their overall satisfaction. So the researchers concluded that there appeared to be no adverse clinically important effects of circumcision on male sexual function in sexually active adults. So that’s our first piece of evidence – good news!
The second study was conducted in Turkey in 2004 with 42 adult men. Now, 39 of these men had their circumcisions for religious reasons, and 3 for cosmetic reasons. The men ranged in age from 19 to 28 and the average age was about 22 years and 4 months. These men were also questioned about their sexual functioning before the surgery in the same way as the men in that first study I told you about. They were also evaluated for the time that it took them to *Baby Batter Projectile*. This time that it takes you before you *Baby Batter Projectile*, from the beginning when you start stimulation until after you *Baby Batter Projectile*, or until the time you *Baby Batter Projectile*, is called ejaculatory latency time. And then, three months after their circumcision, the 42 men were evaluated in exactly the same way again. No differences were found between the men’s reports of their sex drives, their erections, their ejaculations, their sexual problems, and their overall sexual satisfaction before and after the circumcision. But there was a change in their ejaculatory latency time. The average time it took them to *Baby Batter Projectile* was a bit longer than prior to the surgery. The researchers concluded that adult circumcision does not affect sexual functioning and, based on their sample, the increase in ejaculatory latency time, they felt, could be considered an advantage.
The last study was conducted in the United States in 2005. The research was designed specifically to evaluate differences in sensation between two groups of men – one group was circumcised at birth, and the second group was uncircumcised. There were 125 men in the circumcised group, and 62 men in the uncircumcised group. This was a very, very interesting study because they used what’s called quantitative somatosensory testing. And this involves different kinds of touch on the head, or the glans, of the penis. Now these evaluations tested sensitivity to five kinds of sensations – vibration, pressure, spatial perception – that is, it’s the kind of thing where you have two places being touched and they see if you can tell whether it’s one or two places that are being touched, it’s that kind of spatial perception – and when one can feel the first feeling of warmth or the first feeling of cold – so it starts at room temperature or body temperature and then it gets a little bit warmer or a little bit colder, and you tell exactly when (you have your eyes closed of course) you can first feel the warmth or the cold. So it tells you how sensitive you are to temperature. So those are the kinds of tests that they gave – it’s very precise sensory testing. When age, hypertension, diabetes, and any erectile problems were accounted for, there were no differences in the sensitivity to all these different kinds of touch between the circumcised and the uncircumcised men. That’s a very precise kind of measurement of sensitivity. This is, I think, probably the best study done so far, and the results were quite clear. They also agree with the other studies of men who were circumcised in adulthood. So, based on these studies, I feel quite confident in saying to you at this point that there are no identifiable differences in sexual pleasure between circumcised and uncircumcised men. And so I think we can lay that aside, and say that there probably aren’t any differences.
Now I’m going to move on to health issues. There appear to be some health benefits to circumcision that have been identified by research. Now these health benefits are relatively small, and they are about some relatively rare, but nevertheless, I think, important medical problems – that is, the ones that are medical problems that you could be born with or that could happen to you. And they are more likely in uncircumcised males than in circumcised males. The first one is called phimosis, and that’s a condition that you’re born with where the foreskin cannot be pulled back over the head of the penis. And that’s something that can be fixed by surgery. The second is called paraphimosis, and that’s a condition in which the foreskin is trapped behind the head of the penis, and it can’t come over, it can’t be pulled over the glans of the penis. And again, that’s something else that can be fixed by surgery. Third is an inflammation of the glands of the foreskin, which is something that’s again more likely to happen with men who have a foreskin than ones who have been circumcised. Now there are three more health problems that deserve noting because of their seriousness, and these are not so rare and may be more serious. But these all probably can be dealt with with good daily – underline daily – hygiene. But it’s something that you really have to attend to if you have a foreskin. The first is the possibility that being uncircumcised might increase the risk of HIV/AIDS, both acquiring it and transmitting it to somebody else. Now the first study is not very definitive but I want to mention it to you. It’s an overall analysis of 37 studies on the effects of circumcision in preventing the acquisition of the AIDS virus and it showed an association between circumcision and the prevention of HIV. Now association doesn’t mean cause and effect – it means that the two things seem to go together. It’s not causal, but it alerts us that there might be a relationship between one thing and another thing. The researchers warned, however, that the differences among the methods used in all these different studies and the rigor with which the research studies were done was very very low, and so their findings should not be taken as definitive.
A second study was published in 2005, and was conducted to determine the probability of female to male transmission of the AIDS virus between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Now this was done by taking detailed accounts of sexual behavior in a population of men with multiple sexual partners. And the subjects were quite a large group – there were 745 Kenyan truck drivers. Now, they used Kenyan truck drivers because these are men who travel across Africa and they have been thought to be one of the major transmitters of AIDS around the continent of Africa, and they are known to have lots of partners. And their sexual behavior was recorded every three months in interviews, and they were interviewed about their sexual behavior with their wives, with casual partners, and with prostitutes. Now after accounting for the level of individual rates of sexual behavior among the men, the researchers found that uncircumcised men were twice as likely to acquire the AIDS virus per individual sex act when they were compared to circumcised men. So the uncircumcised men were twice as likely to acquire the AIDS virus per individual sex acts with a partner than were the circumcised men. Pretty scary. Again, good hygiene would probably lower this rate, and maybe lower it to be equal to the circumcised men.
Now, two recent studies published in 2002 also appear to support this finding that uncircumcised men are more likely to be at high risk for infection and for transmitting another virus – not the AIDS virus, but another virus. This virus is the one that causes genital warts. And it’s also the same virus that’s identified as related to cervical cancer in women. So it causes genital warts and it’s believed pretty strongly now that it’s the cause of cervical cancer in women. The name of this virus is human papillomavirus, and you also have probably heard it called HPV for short. Now, the first study evaluated 216 Danish men, and it was found that a man was more likely to be infected with HPV if he had a higher number of lifetime sex partners, if he was younger than older, in this study, and if he was uncircumcised. In the second study, which was conducted in Spain with two groups of men – 847 who were uncircumcised, and 292 who were circumcised – and in Spain, more men are uncircumcised than circumcised – 19.6% (that’s just about 1 out of 5) of the uncircumcised men were found to be infected with HPV, that is, with the genital wart virus, whereas only 5.5% of the circumcised men were infected. You see, the foreskin probably has a lot of places where these viruses can hide – there’s not so many places to hide in a circumcised man. So unless an uncircumcised man cleans himself regularly every day, it’s probably easier for these little viruses to hide there. After the findings were adjusted for age at first intercourse, lifetime number of partners, and other potential influences, the differences were still strongly maintained between the circumcised and the uncircumcised men. Now when they looked at the monogamous women – that is, women who did not have any other partners except a man who was in this study – whose male partners had six or more sexual partners and were circumcised, those women, those monogamous women, had a lower risk of cervical cancer than the women whose partners were uncircumcised. So the women who had circumcised partners were at lower risk for having cervical cancer than the women whose partners were uncircumcised. So circumcision seems to have some real health benefits, not just for men, but for their partners as well.
Finally, and this is the final health risk – and although this is very rare, it’s a scary one! Circumcised men appear to be at lower risk for a rare form of cancer which may also be related to that same virus which causes cervical cancer in women, that HPV virus. A study published in 2005 evaluated 62 men with invasive cancer of the penis and compared them with men who were chosen because they were very similar but did not have cancer. The researchers found that men who were not circumcised were at increased risk for this kind of rare cancer – and, the cancer was also related to cigarette smoking and phimosis. And remember, phimosis is a condition in which the foreskin cannot be pulled back behind the head of the penis, which is also, of course, found in men that are uncircumcised. And they found that that same HPV virus was detected in more than ¾ of those cancers, those invasive cancers that were in these men that were more likely to be uncircumcised. And that’s the same virus that is found in many women who have cervical cancer, and those women are more likely to be having sex with men who are uncircumcised. So it all sort of fits together.
So – what’s the story about circumcision? There appear to be some benefits of circumcision, but they’re probably small IF uncircumcised men are careful and consistent in their daily hygiene. And if you’re circumcised, the data suggests that you don’t have to worry about pleasure – you’ve lost nothing from being circumcised, in your sexual pleasure, and you may have gained a few strokes. And that’s the end of this month’s myth.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
I AM however completely convinced that Jeremiah's soul entered his body prior to birth.
|
Based just on this one ambiguous quote from the Bible?!? I am about to write my very first message to the son or daughter which I will one day have:
My dear child, I knew you years before you were even born.
Does this statement mean that my child's soul has already entered its body? No! And I don't see how you can look at essentially the same quote about Jeremiah and come to the opposite conclusion. How can you be so convinced?
| sofyst wrote: |
First, it is not as simple as only the women's rights being violated. If the woman does go through with the abortion, the father's right to have a child has been violated.
|
Yeah right; men are essentially just sperm donors. Their opinions matter very little in the matter. They don't have to go through the pain of child birth. Besides, you can't really use this argument because as things currently stand, if a man doesn't want a baby but the woman he has impregnated does, he can't force her to have an abortion. In fact, quite the opposite is true; he not only has zero rights to force an abortion, but he also is legally obliged to pay child support for the next 18 years or so. If men can't force abortions, then they shouldn't be able to stop them either.
| sofyst wrote: |
If the woman does go through with the abortion the babies right (assuming it is a baby) to live has been violated.
|
She can always get pregnant again. Besides, every baby that a woman has costs the lives of other babies which she could have had. And on top of that, every baby added to the planet increases the human population by one and adds to the amount of suffering and death caused by resource contention.
| sofyst wrote: |
My stance would be to never take away a woman's rights. HOWEVER that being said, first I would simply ask where such right has been given?
|
There is no such thing as rights being given. Without society and laws, all things are permitted. This is the natural and default state of things. People can kill, steal, abuse children, lie, and do anything they want. Rights are not given; they are only taken away. Although I completely support them, it is definitely true that anti-pedophilia laws take pedophile's rights and freedoms away.
So without government interference, a woman definitely has the right to an abortion. It takes energy and effort to take that right away, so the default position without interference is that she can have abortions.
| sofyst wrote: |
I would likewise take the stance whereby the most caution is maintained. If we are with any bit of doubt as to whether that thing within the pregnant woman is a living human or not, we should not act as though it isn't unless we know beyond doubt that it isn't.
I think the case of Jeremiah provides a Biblical support that caution should be had. Again, it does not prove undeniably that the thing within the womb is a living human in every instance (only in the instance of Jeremiah - he may have been a peculiar case), but it does provide reason to have caution. |
That's just it; I completely disagree with your definition of caution. I think that it is MUCH more cautious to assume that ensoulment happens at birth, that abortions therefore are not murder, and that abortions should be allowed.
Think about it; if you assume that ensoulment happens at conception, consequently outlaw all forms of abortion, and are WRONG, then you are falsely quoting God in order to take people's rights away. Like I said before, there is certainly a special place reserved in hell for people who do this.
Not only that, but if you consider how much suffering and pain human overpopulation causes, then it is obvious that abortions much more cautious than the alternative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
What if we are not born with souls and our 'damnation' or eternal seperation from God is a result of having no soul to commune with God, AND, our salvation is actually our ensoulment? |
This is a really good point, RevJP. This whole time everyone has just been assuming that since humans have souls and animals don't, and since it's ok to kill animals but not humans, it's the presence of the soul is what makes the difference.
Really this is a huge assumption with (as far as I know) no scriptural support. As you say, it could easily be the case that ensoulment happens well after birth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | I understand what you are saying Adam, I just think it is an irrelevant qualification.
|
I agree with RevJP; your argument makes sense, but I just don't think it's very convincing. It certainly isn't the slam dunk that you'd want it to be in order to justify telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
Back to your argument: I don't believe that I had a soul when I was a fetus, but I still think that that fetus was 'me'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Two more argument on the side of pro-choice:
1. Something like 90% of pregnancies end in miscarriages, and for the vast majority of them, women don't even know they miscarried. In many cases, the fertilized egg simply fails to implant. If you believe that ensoulment happens at conception, then this fact about miscarriages has immediate logical consequences:
If you believe that any soul that has not been saved goes to hell, then it means that the vast majority if the souls in hell are ones whose bodies died as the result of a miscarriage.
If you believe that the souls of fetuses who died as a result of miscarriages go to heaven, then the vast majority of the souls in heaven are ones whose bodies died as the result of a miscarriage.
Both scenarios are pretty stupid. This reductio ad absurdum argument shows that ensoulment cannot possibly happen at conception.
2. Abortion was a widely-practiced medical procedure during the time that the Bible was being written. If indeed abortions are murder, then it is extremely unlikely that people back then who were inspired by God to write the Bible would have simply forgotten to mention that abortions are wrong. The only conclusion to draw from this is that abortions are ok. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1532
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
2. Abortion was a widely-practiced medical procedure during the time that the Bible was being written. If indeed abortions are murder, then it is extremely unlikely that people back then who were inspired by God to write the Bible would have simply forgotten to mention that abortions are wrong. The only conclusion to draw from this is that abortions are ok. |
There used to be a drug called silphium, contemporary with the last pennings of the bible, that was likely an abortifacient, and a known herbal contraceptive. It was apparently pretty popular. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5703
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | There used to be a drug called silphium, contemporary with the last pennings of the bible, that was likely an abortifacient, and a known herbal contraceptive. It was apparently pretty popular. |
You're welcome  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dramatic_n_comedic_lynn
Big Goldfish
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 73
Location: Sweden (though I'm from Maryland)
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| theseldomscene wrote: | | like who?...i have never meet a circumsized man who resent his parents for it...but i have meet some that weren't who did... |
Well, I can say the same thing about a guy that isn't circumsized. I have never met any guy, especially in Europe, that doesn't regret not being circumsized. Maybe it's a cultural thing..I don't know.
| Quote: | | no ma'am...a parent should have the responsiblity over their baby and should make that choice for them!!... |
really? So you think if a parent wanted to get their daughter circumsize as well, that should happen too?
| Quote: | | one has nothing to do with the other nor does it make your point more valid because women chose to have babies...that is not even a sound arguement... |
Key word...chose. A guy should have full responsiblity over whether or not he wants to be circumsized or not. It is his body after all.
| Quote: | | this very staemnet is self defeating...reread it...maybe it will hit you if you can stop your trashy language long enough to read it... |
trashy language? LOL...sorry, but gland isn't a trashy word. Now, if you mean "cut", I am trying to use circumsized or not circumsized.
| Quote: | | read a book and learn...so you don't look as uninformed as you just did... |
actually, I have learned about it. Perhaps, I wanted to see what you thought it would prevent. I already explained above that circumcision does remove the foreskin which acts as a sheath over a gland.
| Quote: | | yes...and when you do your research...you'll see what i have said is true...so it does't matter if they disagree or not...facts are facts...again...you are speaking out of ignorance...READ!!! |
You know what? Drop your attitude. I just want your opinions and your perspectives of what you have personally learned. I have already read about circumcision, and I still disagree with it. I don't like parents forcing the choice on their children, however I never said it should be illegalized either. I'm not going to be the one around when the child comes back to their parents years later asking why they were or weren't circumsized.
I'm being consistant in my pro-choice beliefs by feeling men should have control over their own bodies like women do. If I don't feel like a man should have control over his body, I'm not much of a pro-choicer now am I?
| Quote: | | all you are babbloing is a man can produce all the kids he wants and not have to take responsiblity for them that is crap...he should have to...8under any circumstances if it is his, whether he wants ot or not.... |
What are you talking about? Did you read the part I said later on in my post that I support women opting out of parenthood by aborting their pregnancy and giving their child up for adoption?
And if you think a guy has to pay for child support if the woman gives up the child for adoption, do you think she should too since she did the very same thing?
And again, knock it off with the attitude. I'm just giving my opinion. You don't have to be snarly when you give me yours too. You can still be respectful with your views without giving another person an attitude problem that disagrees with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dramatic_n_comedic_lynn wrote: | I have never met any guy, especially in Europe, that doesn't regret not being circumsized.
|
This is one of the most awe-inspiring sentences that I've ever read!
If someone regrets not being circumsized, then they basically think, "Man, I wish I'd been circumsized."
So you've never met a European guy who doesn't think, "Man, I wish I'd been circumsized."
Does this mean that every European guy you've met wishes that he'd been circumsized? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P123 wrote: | Based just on this one ambiguous quote from the Bible?!? I am about to write my very first message to the son or daughter which I will one day have:
My dear child, I knew you years before you were even born.
Does this statement mean that my child's soul has already entered its body? No! And I don't see how you can look at essentially the same quote about Jeremiah and come to the opposite conclusion. How can you be so convinced? |
P123 (what is another name I can call you, I don't like typing that out), I want to ask you a simple question, and we'll see where we go from there.
What is the difference in these two statements?
'My dear child, I knew you before you were ever born'
and
'My dear child, I knew you when you were sitting upon my knee'
What is the difference in those two statements as you see them?
| Quote: | | Yeah right; men are essentially just sperm donors. Their opinions matter very little in the matter. They don't have to go through the pain of child birth. Besides, you can't really use this argument because as things currently stand, if a man doesn't want a baby but the woman he has impregnated does, he can't force her to have an abortion. In fact, quite the opposite is true; he not only has zero rights to force an abortion, but he also is legally obliged to pay child support for the next 18 years or so. If men can't force abortions, then they shouldn't be able to stop them either. |
Well if they can't stop them either, why should they pay for the child for 18 years? Hopefully you won't say because they have to now, there is nothing they can do about it, the child has been conceived, they must live with their mistake and pay for it...hopefully that wouldn't be your answer.
| Quote: | | She can always get pregnant again. Besides, every baby that a woman has costs the lives of other babies which she could have had. And on top of that, every baby added to the planet increases the human population by one and adds to the amount of suffering and death caused by resource contention. |
This is entirely another discussion that I don't want to get into right now. Suffice it to say, I agree with you partly.
| Quote: | There is no such thing as rights being given. Without society and laws, all things are permitted. This is the natural and default state of things. People can kill, steal, abuse children, lie, and do anything they want. Rights are not given; they are only taken away. Although I completely support them, it is definitely true that anti-pedophilia laws take pedophile's rights and freedoms away.
So without government interference, a woman definitely has the right to an abortion. It takes energy and effort to take that right away, so the default position without interference is that she can have abortions. |
If said as such, then I would agree with you. I was referring to 'rights' as those things which a person has such as 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. I wasn't referring to the act of having sex with a child to be a pedophile's right, but rather a pedophile's abusive behavior.
If we say that all people have the right to do anything they so please, and government comes in refuses certain rights for certain reasons, sometimes justifiably, then I would agree that the woman does have the right to an abortion. But I would likewise agree that the taking away of this right is parallel to the taking away of the pedophile's right to have sex with children. They are both wrong acts.
| Quote: | That's just it; I completely disagree with your definition of caution. I think that it is MUCH more cautious to assume that ensoulment happens at birth, that abortions therefore are not murder, and that abortions should be allowed.
Think about it; if you assume that ensoulment happens at conception, consequently outlaw all forms of abortion, and are WRONG, then you are falsely quoting God in order to take people's rights away. Like I said before, there is certainly a special place reserved in hell for people who do this.
Not only that, but if you consider how much suffering and pain human overpopulation causes, then it is obvious that abortions much more cautious than the alternative. |
No, I am not really claiming that ensoulment happens at conception. I am saying it very may well be that it happens at birth. It may happen sometime in between. It may not happen until the child is two-years old. Who the hell knows?
I am saying that since we don't know, since we can't make a biblically sound case one way or another. And for you, since we can't make a scientifically proven case one way or another. Then to err (is it 'err' or 'air'??) on the side of caution is to assume that the fetus/child/baby has ensoulment at the earliest possible time.
For this very reason. If we assume that the baby gains a soul at conception, and therefore do not ever abort the fetus, and yet find out later that the ensoulment didn't occur until the child was two years old, what have we lost? We never ran the risk of killing the child.
If we assume it happens at conception, and therefore never abort the fetus, and find out later that the ensoulment really did occur at conception, we have saved a life by not aborting that which was life.
If we assume that ensoulment happens at birth, and therefore abort the fetus anytime before that, and find out later that it really did occur at birth, we haven't lost anything.
HOWEVER, if we assume that ensoulment happens at birth, and therefore abort the fetus anytime before that, and yet find out later that it really occured at conception, we have committed murder.
Understand? I am saying that we do not know, we cannot make a Scientific nor Biblical case either way. Therefore, to avoid murder at all costs, we should go with the safest course of action. The safest one is the one where we run absolutely no risk whatsoever of murdering the child. That would be to assume that ensoulment happens at conception.
This is why I would say the course of action whereby we never run the risk of murder is the safest. I think though you are going to say that the murdering of the child is not the highest priority, that the overpopulation of the world is the greatest good we should strive towards.
While this is a different discussion altogether (I think we are here discussing when life occurs), I will simply ask whether you would support the practice of killing any children? If we wanted to keep overpopulation down, why then not just have it so that everyone has only one child? Even if they birthed other children, we would just exterminate those children in the name of not wanting to overpopulate the earth. If your goal is to decrease overpopulation, would you consider this an valid course of action? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dramatic_n_comedic_lynn
Big Goldfish
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 73
Location: Sweden (though I'm from Maryland)
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | So you've never met a European guy who doesn't think, "Man, I wish I'd been circumsized." |
No...but then again, it something that doesn't come up in a conversation.
| Quote: | | Does this mean that every European guy you've met wishes that he'd been circumsized? |
How should I know? I don't go around asking men if they are happy being uncircumsized or not because it's not my business. Nor is it something brought up in a conversation.
However, people that live in Sweden think circumcision is child abuse. My SO, being a Swedish citizen, has never met another Swede that wanted to be circumsized. You can ask him since he's a member on this board. It's Fake |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
P123 (what is another name I can call you, I don't like typing that out),
|
Just call me P!
| sofyst wrote: |
I want to ask you a simple question, and we'll see where we go from there.
What is the difference in these two statements?
'My dear child, I knew you before you were ever born'
and
'My dear child, I knew you when you were sitting upon my knee'
What is the difference in those two statements as you see them?
|
The differences are considerable. It is impossible to tell what the author of these two sentences had in mind without more context.
The first sentence could mean, "I had hopes and dreams for you before you were ever born. I even set up a college fund and contributed regularly to it."
The second sentence could mean, "I watched you grow up."
There simply isn't enough context. Just like in the Bible, there isn't enough context to warrant the conclusions that you're coming to about Jeremiah.
| sofyst wrote: |
Well if they can't stop them either, why should they pay for the child for 18 years?
|
Anti-abortionists would absolutely FREAK if someone tried to pass a law saying that men don't have to pay child support. This legislation would considerably increase the number of abortions being performed. If women had no guarantees for financial support, many would come to the conclusion that pregnancy is a bad idea.
| sofyst wrote: |
I am saying that since we don't know, since we can't make a biblically sound case one way or another. And for you, since we can't make a scientifically proven case one way or another. Then to err (is it 'err' or 'air'??) on the side of caution is to assume that the fetus/child/baby has ensoulment at the earliest possible time.
|
But you aren't erring on the side of caution at all! You are saying that it is safer to assume that ensoulment happens at some point before birth and to make abortion illegal. This isn't caution; it's completely reckless! For one, if you're wrong, it means that you're falsely and self-righteously using the authority of God in order to take away ALL woman's freedom over their own bodies. Do you seriously think that God doesn't mind when people do evil things in His name???
If you want to err on the side of caution, then you shouldn't risk eternal damnation! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P wrote: | The differences are considerable. It is impossible to tell what the author of these two sentences had in mind without more context.
The first sentence could mean, "I had hopes and dreams for you before you were ever born. I even set up a college fund and contributed regularly to it."
The second sentence could mean, "I watched you grow up."
There simply isn't enough context. Just like in the Bible, there isn't enough context to warrant the conclusions that you're coming to about Jeremiah. |
So when God said 'I formed YOU in the womb', it is assumptive of me to think that it was Jeremiah in the womb being formed?
| Quote: | | Anti-abortionists would absolutely FREAK if someone tried to pass a law saying that men don't have to pay child support. This legislation would considerably increase the number of abortions being performed. If women had no guarantees for financial support, many would come to the conclusion that pregnancy is a bad idea. |
To be blunt, so? Why should men have to pay for something they don't want?
| Quote: | But you aren't erring on the side of caution at all! You are saying that it is safer to assume that ensoulment happens at some point before birth and to make abortion illegal. This isn't caution; it's completely reckless! For one, if you're wrong, it means that you're falsely and self-righteously using the authority of God in order to take away ALL woman's freedom over their own bodies. Do you seriously think that God doesn't mind when people do evil things in His name???
If you want to err on the side of caution, then you shouldn't risk eternal damnation! |
But don't you see that my argument needn't be based upon Scripture? We are simply considering when a person becomes a person. You say at birth, I say sometime before. We don't know. Therefore, let us assume it happens at the earliest time possible. I don't need to resort to the authority of God to make that argument, an atheist could make the very same argument.
An atheist could look at the developing fetus within the womb, and if asked 'is that a person?', the atheist could respond, 'well I don't know, but lets not kill it just in case it is...' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
