 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | I'm claiming that she can always have a different baby later, so if the choice is to have one now and not later or have one later and not now, then go with the choice that is better for society and the mother. The way I see it, we have two options which are identical except that in one of them, society as well as a mother and her child are worse off. |
And I'm questioning this and calling it what it is, an unfounded assumption. You have no idea whether she could have a different baby later. To speak as though she could, and to say she could and will beyond doubt is foolishness.
I could either go into the whole 'carpe deum' thing about not knowing what the future holds.
Or just speak plainly about it being impossible to know whether women can have different babies at later times and therefore making it impossible to speak as though they could.
Let us turn the table a little. If I was to make the claim, 'a woman SHOULD have a baby now because she WILL NOT be able to have a baby at a later date' would you accept this as a reasonable argument? Or would you recognize that I cannot tell whether she will or will not be able to at a later date and therefore cannot argue as though she cannot...
| Quote: | We're going down this path because I think it's a very important argument.
I am making what I consider to be a powerful argument in favor of abortion: that even if you DO consider it to be murder, it's a zero sum game in the sense that whether or not a woman decides to have an abortion, in either case she is 'killing' someone. If she has the abortion, then she is arguably killing a baby. And if she decides against the abortion and has the baby, then she is arguably killing the baby that she would have had later but now isn't going to have. In either case, the result is the same: a human being ends up not existing.
I am EXACTLY as happy that my mother did not abort me as I am that I was conceived. If either of those things had gone the other way, I would not exist.
Non-existence is the key issue here. Whether or not that is done by a surgical procedure or by contraception really doesn't matter to the person who ends up not existing. |
Once again, P123, be reasonable here (I know you are). You CANNOT argue that a woman having a baby now is the killing of a baby that she could have in the future. This is a ridiculous argument because you really have no idea whether she could have a baby in the future or not.
If a woman has an abortion, then she is killing a baby (let us concede that it is killing a baby). This is undeniable. We have a baby killed.
However, you have no idea whether the woman could have a baby in the future, so you cannot make (with the same assurance) the claim that her not having an abortion is her killing the could-be-baby of the future.
I think this can simply be asked as such: do you know without doubt that a woman (any woman) can have a baby in the future? Or can you only speculate and guess and assume that she might be able to?
| Quote: | | I agree that not being fully-formed is not a sufficient condition for labeling someone as a non-human. There are obviously other important differences between fetuses and teenagers. For one, fetuses (provided they aren't due in a couple of weeks) cannot survive outside of the mother's body alone. By contrast, babies, toddlers, children, and teenagers are all fully-functional, self-contained humans that don't need life support. |
I was hoping you would make that argument. For it is true that a fetus cannot survive outside of a mother, it is entirely dependent upon the mother, but so is the baby. A baby does not need life support, agreed, but it is entirely dependent upon care and assistance to live.
If we said that the fetus needing help to live is reason for it not being a human, then we would have to say that a baby is as well. And what about the elderly or comatose that need life support?
| Quote: | | Then there are the issues of having a developed nervous system, having emotions, being able to feel pain, etc. |
All of which are debatable given that humans outside of the womb do not always have fully functioning systems or emotions. And likewise fetuses within the womb do feel pain (or at least recoil as if feeling pain).
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8331
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
However, you have no idea whether the woman could have a baby in the future, so you cannot make (with the same assurance) the claim that her not having an abortion is her killing the could-be-baby of the future.
I think this can simply be asked as such: do you know without doubt that a woman (any woman) can have a baby in the future? Or can you only speculate and guess and assume that she might be able to?
|
You're getting too hung up on individuals. I'm talking about the bigger picture here. In Western countries, women have one or two children, and then they use technology to make sure that they don't have any more. Is this true in every case? No, of course not. But when you look at millions and millions of women, it is true that in a HUGE percentage of them, they only want one or two kids. If they have them early, then they won't have them later on.
This is sociology and not mathematics. Of course I can't give you 100% assurances of anything. That's not the way we make laws. We make laws and policies based on probabilities. And it is definitely true that in Western countries, the vast majority of women only have a few kids and then stop reproducing.
| sofyst wrote: |
I was hoping you would make that argument. For it is true that a fetus cannot survive outside of a mother, it is entirely dependent upon the mother, but so is the baby. A baby does not need life support, agreed, but it is entirely dependent upon care and assistance to live.
If we said that the fetus needing help to live is reason for it not being a human, then we would have to say that a baby is as well. And what about the elderly or comatose that need life support?
|
I don't know. I would be much less willing to make blanket statements about them. I am willing to make a blanket statement about fetuses; if a woman wants to have an abortion, then she should be allowed to.
You aren't going to get me to say anything nearly as strong about the elderly. I won't say, "If a child wants to disconnect a parent from life support, then they should be allowed to."
| sofyst wrote: |
| Quote: | | Then there are the issues of having a developed nervous system, having emotions, being able to feel pain, etc. |
All of which are debatable given that humans outside of the womb do not always have fully functioning systems or emotions. And likewise fetuses within the womb do feel pain (or at least recoil as if feeling pain). |
The nervous system only becomes developed enough to feel pain well into the pregnancy. Everyone agrees that during the first trimester (which is when the vast majority of abortions are performed) the fetus can feel no pain.
There are also a whole bunch of other arguments in favor of abortion which we haven't even touched on yet. For example, if abortions are outlawed, then a whole bunch of bad things happen:
1. Many more babies with severe cases of fetal alcohol syndrome and nervous system disorders caused by their mothers' drug addictions will be born.
2. Many more women will end up going down to Mexico or to back alley chop shops to have 'coat hanger abortions', and many will end up dying because of it.
3. Women's rights will be rolled back by decades and society will suffer immensely because of it. Women's liberation has made our society considerably more civilized, and has had incredible benefits for the economy.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | You're getting too hung up on individuals. I'm talking about the bigger picture here. In Western countries, women have one or two children, and then they use technology to make sure that they don't have any more. Is this true in every case? No, of course not. But when you look at millions and millions of women, it is true that in a HUGE percentage of them, they only want one or two kids. If they have them early, then they won't have them later on.
This is sociology and not mathematics. Of course I can't give you 100% assurances of anything. That's not the way we make laws. We make laws and policies based on probabilities. And it is definitely true that in Western countries, the vast majority of women only have a few kids and then stop reproducing. |
I understand your reasoning, but you are not sticking to the 'bigger picture' yourself. You are saying that if a woman doesn't get an abortion, then she will kill, or keep from living, a child she may have in the future. This argument is not applicable to abortion on the large scale, as it necessarily addresses women personally.
If you were to argue that abortions should be legal based upon women only wanting a few kids, or the majority of women only have a few kids, and therefore abortion should be allowed to prevent further kids or overpopulation, that would be an argument focusing on the bigger picture.
But when you say that abortion destroys the life of children that would have been born, and yet will not be if the pregnancy is had, then we must necessarily focus upon the individuals.
| Quote: | I don't know. I would be much less willing to make blanket statements about them. I am willing to make a blanket statement about fetuses; if a woman wants to have an abortion, then she should be allowed to.
You aren't going to get me to say anything nearly as strong about the elderly. I won't say, "If a child wants to disconnect a parent from life support, then they should be allowed to." |
I understand that you believe she should be allowed to, but you cannot say she should be allowed to based upon the fetus not being able to survive outside of the mother (and hence the fetus is not fully 'human') or that the fetus cannot survive upon its own. This is a faulty argument that would necessarily degrade the life of small children and the elderly. You would need another argument (which you have provided) supporting your view that abortions should be allowed besides this argument.
| Quote: | | The nervous system only becomes developed enough to feel pain well into the pregnancy. Everyone agrees that during the first trimester (which is when the vast majority of abortions are performed) the fetus can feel no pain. |
This I'll give you. But I still don't think it is good reason for allowing abortion. For the feeling of pain is not a complete deciding factor of whether a person is a person or not.
| Quote: | | 1. Many more babies with severe cases of fetal alcohol syndrome and nervous system disorders caused by their mothers' drug addictions will be born. |
This is a shaky argument at best. One could just as well argue along these lines for children within Africa. If we don't kill the babies (not fetuses, small children), then more people will contract aids, therefore kill the babies.
| Quote: | | 2. Many more women will end up going down to Mexico or to back alley chop shops to have 'coat hanger abortions', and many will end up dying because of it. |
I understand this line of thinking, and it is somewhat similar to my idea of why drugs should be legalized. I have argued that the making illegal of drugs only causes more harm then not. People will get drugs. Making them illegal only makes the process they get them more 'shady' or 'undesirable'. It also adds to the cost of enforcing the laws.
However, while I make this argument, and think it somewhat valid, I don't think this overrides the issue of why they are made illegal (that is assuming that I believe the reasoning is good).
The same is true with abortion. Yes, the making abortion illegal may lead to undesirable consequences for abortions that will be had, but it does not override the morality behind the decision to make it illegal.
Understand my thinking?
| Quote: | | 3. Women's rights will be rolled back by decades and society will suffer immensely because of it. Women's liberation has made our society considerably more civilized, and has had incredible benefits for the economy. |
But that is assuming I believe women should have the right to kill the fetus. I have never been one about supporting a persons right to do whatever. I do believe we have basic and fundamental rights, but that doesn't mean that I think that we have a right to do whatever we so please. Sometimes the rights of people must be suspended or revoked in order to save other people more helpless than themselves. A woman unwilling to give up her right to kill the unborn is not seen as a victim in my opinion if she is not allowed this right, but rather a stubborn and selfish individual.
Rights are revoked all the time P. Humans do not necessarily have the right to do whatever they so desire.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8331
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
I understand your reasoning, but you are not sticking to the 'bigger picture' yourself. You are saying that if a woman doesn't get an abortion, then she will kill, or keep from living, a child she may have in the future. This argument is not applicable to abortion on the large scale, as it necessarily addresses women personally.
|
No, it does apply to the big picture. The following is a true statement:
When you look at all of the women in North America who have had babies (i.e. millions of women ), millions of the babies which were born to them meant that millions of other babies would not be born to them later on.
Or put another way: after contraception was invented, most of the babies born meant that other babies later on would not be born.
These are true statements.
| sofyst wrote: |
I understand that you believe she should be allowed to, but you cannot say she should be allowed to based upon the fetus not being able to survive outside of the mother (and hence the fetus is not fully 'human') or that the fetus cannot survive upon its own. This is a faulty argument that would necessarily degrade the life of small children and the elderly. You would need another argument (which you have provided) supporting your view that abortions should be allowed besides this argument.
|
If you want a mathematical statement governing abortion, how about "age is less than zero and can not survive without life support"?
Or just, "Age is less than zero."
| sofyst wrote: |
This is a shaky argument at best. One could just as well argue along these lines for children within Africa. If we don't kill the babies (not fetuses, small children), then more people will contract aids, therefore kill the babies.
|
Not really; you're taking my argument to extremes which I don't agree with. If I say, "It's ok to kill mosquitos.", and you reply, "Well, if we take that thinking to its logical conclusion, then it's ok to kill humans as well.", I also wouldn't agree with you.
| sofyst wrote: |
The same is true with abortion. Yes, the making abortion illegal may lead to undesirable consequences for abortions that will be had, but it does not override the morality behind the decision to make it illegal.
Understand my thinking?
|
Sure, but what do you mean by 'morality'? If all morality comes from the Bible, and if the Bible is ambiguous on abortion, then how can we be talking about morality with respect to abortion?
Really, what is immoral about destroying a 3-week old fetus? Exactly how is it immoral?
| sofyst wrote: |
Rights are revoked all the time P. Humans do not necessarily have the right to do whatever they so desire. |
Yes, but usually we revoke rights only if it will lead to the world becoming a better place. Revoking abortion rights will make the world become a worse place.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Or put another way: after contraception was invented, most of the babies born meant that other babies later on would not be born. |
Ok, let me understand this a little better, and these questions needn't be answered with absolutely accurate statistical information.
Before contraception was invented, what was the average count of children per woman?
After contraception was invented, what was the average count of children per woman?
| Quote: | If you want a mathematical statement governing abortion, how about "age is less than zero and can not survive without life support"?
Or just, "Age is less than zero." |
I don't understand what that has to do with anything...
| Quote: | | Not really; you're taking my argument to extremes which I don't agree with. If I say, "It's ok to kill mosquitos.", and you reply, "Well, if we take that thinking to its logical conclusion, then it's ok to kill humans as well.", I also wouldn't agree with you. |
I'd agree that I am taking your argument farther than you intended it to go, but I wouldn't agree that I am taking it to the extreme or taking it to an illogical conclusion.
You claimed that if we don't have abortions, then we would have more sick children (lets just put it under that label to make things easier). But this line of thinking is the same as the situation I provided above. If we don't kill the children in Africa, then we will have more people with aids. I am surprised that you think this argument of mine derived from your's is extreme, as it is similar to the one you attempted to present earlier, that if we don't have abortion, then we will have overpopulation issues.
| Quote: | Sure, but what do you mean by 'morality'? If all morality comes from the Bible, and if the Bible is ambiguous on abortion, then how can we be talking about morality with respect to abortion?
Really, what is immoral about destroying a 3-week old fetus? Exactly how is it immoral? |
It is immoral in the sense that it is the taking of a human life.
| Quote: | | Yes, but usually we revoke rights only if it will lead to the world becoming a better place. Revoking abortion rights will make the world become a worse place. |
Because of overpopulation and more babies with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? Is that why the world would be a worse place?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8331
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
Ok, let me understand this a little better, and these questions needn't be answered with absolutely accurate statistical information.
Before contraception was invented, what was the average count of children per woman?
After contraception was invented, what was the average count of children per woman?
|
Contraception was invented thousands of years ago, so I can't really answer this question. The only difference is that it's gotten better and better.
Women used to use herbs and all sorts of other things including the 'rhythm method'. These were forms of contraception; they didn't really work THAT well, but they worked better than nothing.
Even 60 years ago we had condoms. It was only during the 60s and 70s that the pill became popular. It gave women complete control over their reproduction.
The number of babies being born per woman in North America has decreased steadily. It's at an all time low now.
My point is that millions of babies that would have been born ended up not being born because they had siblings born earlier. I don't think this is debatable. So in a very real way, causing one baby to exist means that some other one won't. Similarly, aborting a baby gives a later one who otherwise wouldn't have been born the opportunity of existing.
| sofyst wrote: |
| Quote: | If you want a mathematical statement governing abortion, how about "age is less than zero and can not survive without life support"?
Or just, "Age is less than zero." |
I don't understand what that has to do with anything...
|
You're asking for sufficient conditions for terminating 'human' life. You didn't like the "Can survive on its own." condition, because that doesn't rule out the elderly, comatose patients and babies. So I've given you another condition which does rule them out.
| sofyst wrote: |
I'd agree that I am taking your argument farther than you intended it to go, but I wouldn't agree that I am taking it to the extreme or taking it to an illogical conclusion.
You claimed that if we don't have abortions, then we would have more sick children (lets just put it under that label to make things easier). But this line of thinking is the same as the situation I provided above. If we don't kill the children in Africa, then we will have more people with aids. I am surprised that you think this argument of mine derived from your's is extreme, as it is similar to the one you attempted to present earlier, that if we don't have abortion, then we will have overpopulation issues.
|
Listen, I'm not saying that we should abort all pregnancies which will produce babies with fetal alcohol syndrome. I'm saying it should be up to the mother. If she wants to have the baby, then fine. If not, then fine. The same goes for babies in Africa. If a woman is going to have a baby which will be HIV positive and she wants to abort it, then fine. If she wants to have it, then fine. I'm not trying to set some kind of extermination policy here.
I simply pointed out that if abortion were illegal, then we would immediately have more babies being born with serious problems, problems which society will have to deal with. If they're not born, then society will not have to deal with them and instead can put those resources elsewhere.
| sofyst wrote: |
| Quote: |
Really, what is immoral about destroying a 3-week old fetus? Exactly how is it immoral? |
It is immoral in the sense that it is the taking of a human life.
|
It's just a tiny little blob. I see very little difference in morality between wearing a condom during sex and aborting a 3-week old fetus.
Think about it... Which scenario would have been worse for you... If your parents had used contraception, or if your mother had aborted you? In either case you wouldn't exist... If anything, you should favor the case of abortion, because in that case there's at least a chance that you already had an immortal soul which would then have gone to heaven!!!
If you'd been contracepted rather than aborted, then you DEFINITELY wouldn't have had a soul yet. Which is better, eternal life in heaven, or non-existence?
| sofyst wrote: |
| Quote: | | Yes, but usually we revoke rights only if it will lead to the world becoming a better place. Revoking abortion rights will make the world become a worse place. |
Because of overpopulation and more babies with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? Is that why the world would be a worse place? |
And all of the other things: women's rights, lower crime rates, higher education rates, fewer women being chopped up by unqualified back-alley doctors, etc.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | My point is that millions of babies that would have been born ended up not being born because they had siblings born earlier. I don't think this is debatable. So in a very real way, causing one baby to exist means that some other one won't. Similarly, aborting a baby gives a later one who otherwise wouldn't have been born the opportunity of existing. |
Well I think it is debatable. How do you know that millions of babies that would have been born weren't born because of siblings born earlier? If contraceptives have been around for a long time, then we cannot necessarily blame them (meaning we can't say that the millions of babies would have been born if their parents didn't use contraceptives because they didn't want more kids because they already had 2.5 kids).
How do you know that millions of babies would have been born if earlier siblings had not been? How do you know that five or six or seven children is not the extraordinary and two or three children is the ordinary?
I have already asked this on the personal level, but I think it is applicable on the societal level as well.
| Quote: | | You're asking for sufficient conditions for terminating 'human' life. You didn't like the "Can survive on its own." condition, because that doesn't rule out the elderly, comatose patients and babies. So I've given you another condition which does rule them out. |
But isn't this you stacking the deck before (is that the right picture I'm going for...where you make the rules before you play the game...I can't think of the correct label of that)?
Whose to say that these 'sufficient conditions' are adequate? Couldn't someone come along and make similar conditions? Saying, 'age is less than five and cannot survive on its own'. Why would that be a worse condition than your own?
| Quote: | | I simply pointed out that if abortion were illegal, then we would immediately have more babies being born with serious problems, problems which society will have to deal with. If they're not born, then society will not have to deal with them and instead can put those resources elsewhere. |
But again, the same principle can be applied elsewhere, 'if we don't kill the majority of children in Africa, then we would immediately have more children with serious problems, problems which society will have to deal with. If they are killed, then society will not have to deal with them and instead can put those resources elsewhere.'
| Quote: | It's just a tiny little blob. I see very little difference in morality between wearing a condom during sex and aborting a 3-week old fetus.
Think about it... Which scenario would have been worse for you... If your parents had used contraception, or if your mother had aborted you? In either case you wouldn't exist... If anything, you should favor the case of abortion, because in that case there's at least a chance that you already had an immortal soul which would then have gone to heaven!!!
If you'd been contracepted rather than aborted, then you DEFINITELY wouldn't have had a soul yet. Which is better, eternal life in heaven, or non-existence? |
This is assuming that I believe little babies or fetuses do go to heaven...Jesus said you cannot enter the kingdom of God unless you are born again. How can those which are not yet born be born again? How can little babies have faith (the necessity to being born again)?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8331
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
Well I think it is debatable. How do you know that millions of babies that would have been born weren't born because of siblings born earlier? If contraceptives have been around for a long time, then we cannot necessarily blame them (meaning we can't say that the millions of babies would have been born if their parents didn't use contraceptives because they didn't want more kids because they already had 2.5 kids).
How do you know that millions of babies would have been born if earlier siblings had not been?
|
Because the average woman only has a couple of children. Under modern economic conditions in the West, having more children is too expensive. Many woman now also have careers. They simply don't have the time or the resources to be pumping out babies all the time.
It really is true that if you take the average woman, she wants kids, but if she's already got a few, then she doesn't want any more. Do you honestly dispute this?
| sofyst wrote: |
But isn't this you stacking the deck before (is that the right picture I'm going for...where you make the rules before you play the game...I can't think of the correct label of that)?
Whose to say that these 'sufficient conditions' are adequate? Couldn't someone come along and make similar conditions? Saying, 'age is less than five and cannot survive on its own'. Why would that be a worse condition than your own?
|
Because that condition has weaker arguments supporting it. You can't reasonably justify killing a 4-year-old who is on temporary life support. For one, the mother's right to choose what happens with her own body is no longer an issue.
| sofyst wrote: |
But again, the same principle can be applied elsewhere, 'if we don't kill the majority of children in Africa, then we would immediately have more children with serious problems, problems which society will have to deal with. If they are killed, then society will not have to deal with them and instead can put those resources elsewhere.'
|
I am not saying that we should kill anyone or anything. I am saying that we should give mothers the right to terminate their pregnancies. Of course, this includes African women; if they want abortions, then they should be allowed to abort. If they don't then of course they shouldn't be forced to have abortions, and we DEFINITELY shouldn't be killing African children. That's a horrendous idea! 
| sofyst wrote: |
| Quote: | It's just a tiny little blob. I see very little difference in morality between wearing a condom during sex and aborting a 3-week old fetus.
Think about it... Which scenario would have been worse for you... If your parents had used contraception, or if your mother had aborted you? In either case you wouldn't exist... If anything, you should favor the case of abortion, because in that case there's at least a chance that you already had an immortal soul which would then have gone to heaven!!!
If you'd been contracepted rather than aborted, then you DEFINITELY wouldn't have had a soul yet. Which is better, eternal life in heaven, or non-existence? |
This is assuming that I believe little babies or fetuses do go to heaven...Jesus said you cannot enter the kingdom of God unless you are born again. How can those which are not yet born be born again? How can little babies have faith (the necessity to being born again)? |
This puts you into a very difficult theological position. If you believe that fetuses have immortal souls and that they DON'T go to heaven after being aborted, then what is the alternative? They must go to hell.
But if you consider them to be 'human beings', then fetuses are about the most innocent human beings on the planet.
If Christianity sends these innocent immortal souls to hell to burn in hellfire FOR ALL ETERNITY, then it is a truly cruel religion.
The solution is this: Jesus was talking about proper sinners, and not innocent souls, and the souls of babies who die still go to heaven. But this still leaves my argument intact: it is better to be aborted than to never be conceived, because at least then you get to spend eternity in heaven as opposed to not existing at all.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8331
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have also never heard a satisfactory answer to the following question:
Abortions were common in antiquity. If they really are murder, then why doesn't it say so EXPLICITLY in the Bible? Its writers would have been aware of abortions, and if they really were so evil, then why wouldn't they mention it?
I mean, they go into painstaking detail about not eating shellfish and whatever, and then they are totally unclear on abortion??? It just doesn't make sense. If abortion really were murder, then they would have mentioned it.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
P, by 'antiquity' do you mean the time of Moses, or the time of Jesus perhaps?
And are you attempting to argue theology with me?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8331
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | P, by 'antiquity' do you mean the time of Moses, or the time of Jesus perhaps?
|
I don't know about Moses, but abortion was definitely widespread even before the time of Jesus.
| sofyst wrote: |
And are you attempting to argue theology with me? |
I'm attempting to debate about abortion, but the debate seems to have taken us onto theological ground. But this is nothing new; we were debating theology in the form of scripture before and came to the conclusion that the Bible is ambiguous on the issue of abortion.
Obviously what I'm trying to do is maneuver into a position where you lose in either way. Right now I kind of have you trapped. In order to rebut my point about it being better to go to heaven rather than not existing at all, you have to argue that innocent babies who have never done anything bad to anyone end up burning in hellfire for all eternity (ie. that Christianity is a cruel and unfair religion).
You either have to agree that it's better to be aborted than to not exist, or you have to agree that Christianity is unfair and cruel...
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I'm attempting to debate about abortion, but the debate seems to have taken us onto theological ground. But this is nothing new; we were debating theology in the form of scripture before and came to the conclusion that the Bible is ambiguous on the issue of abortion.
Obviously what I'm trying to do is maneuver into a position where you lose in either way. Right now I kind of have you trapped. In order to rebut my point about it being better to go to heaven rather than not existing at all, you have to argue that innocent babies who have never done anything bad to anyone end up burning in hellfire for all eternity (ie. that Christianity is a cruel and unfair religion).
You either have to agree that it's better to be aborted than to not exist, or you have to agree that Christianity is unfair and cruel... |
Oh don't give yourself too much credit my friend, the argument that Christianity is cruel and unfair is one that can easily be cast down. People always argue that Christianity's major tenet of having people burn in hell (not just children...if we agreed the Scriptures taught this) is cruel and unfair. But this is a separate issue. We could pause momentarily and discuss whether such an act of God (burning people in hell, or more narrowly burning children in hell) is indeed unfair or cruel. Would you have us take that little sidetrack?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8331
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
Oh don't give yourself too much credit my friend, the argument that Christianity is cruel and unfair is one that can easily be cast down. People always argue that Christianity's major tenet of having people burn in hell (not just children...if we agreed the Scriptures taught this) is cruel and unfair. But this is a separate issue. We could pause momentarily and discuss whether such an act of God (burning people in hell, or more narrowly burning children in hell) is indeed unfair or cruel. Would you have us take that little sidetrack? |
Not really; it seems obvious enough to me burning the souls of innocent babies in hellfire for infinity years is cruel. Let's stick with abortion; it seems much less cruel...
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well...when we are discussing abortion, it is always annoying to me when people use terms that are not helpful to discussion. I do this sometimes, in slip, or to make a point, but never to play with the emotions. Like when the 'fetus' is constantly referred to as 'baby' to tug on the heart strings. Or even when it is referred to as 'fetus' to keep the issue cold and distant.
SO! along those same lines, if you are going to refer to it as 'cruel', without attempting to address whether it is cruel or not, and only to plead to mine (or another person's) emotions, that is not fair. Isn't there some logical fallacy addressing that very thing. Or at least an arguing error.
Besides, I can be as cold hearted about this issue as most can about the abortion issue...but it is not conducive for good healthy debate if you do this though.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8331
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
SO! along those same lines, if you are going to refer to it as 'cruel', without attempting to address whether it is cruel or not, and only to plead to mine (or another person's) emotions, that is not fair. Isn't there some logical fallacy addressing that very thing. Or at least an arguing error. |
You are of course correct in that appealing to emotions is a logical fallacy, but that's not what I'm trying to do here.
Burning in hellfire is the worst possible torture. Burning for hellfire for all eternity is the worst possible torture inflicted over an infinite amount of time; it's the worst possible thing that can happen.
I don't think it's an appeal to emotion to say that subjecting the soul of an innocent baby / fetus to the worst possible torture for the longest possible time is cruel. If that's not cruel, then the word cruel is useless and cannot be applied to any situation.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
