Abortion questions...?

I know you're not trying to brag and I commend what you are doing but lets put it in perspective: That's a little over a hundred dollars per person per year. It costs several times that much to support just one foster child in a Third World nation.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

Honestly, I'd probably assume supernatural forces. But that's neither here nor there. I think its pointless to try to do some sciencin' on people's religious speculations about things that we don't even have evidence for in the first place. Well that's a "Duh" point... no offense, but really, I don't see any good reason to expect people to be able to pinpoint exactly when the soul enters the equation.And actually, we can't even pinpoint when conception takes place. Like everything else, there's some gradualness to it. Which, to me, should suggest some gradualness to the emergence of a soul. Again though, that's neither here nor there. If they were literally the same thing, there wouldn't be two different words to describe them But really, its not about ploidy nor the physical differences between them. I think its more about potential. A haploid cannot become a person, and thus have a soul, while the diploid can.

I know, I was just jokingly trying to bring up old points that dragged on in the supernatural threads. I failed. Perhaps, I wouldn't say it's completely pointless in all cases. If someone makes a claim like, "A zygote has a soul," it's only fair that I'm allowed to probe that claim a bit. Especially if someone is using it as their reason for not supporting 1st trimester abortions.But I get what you mean. True, but then why even suggest a soul if there is no way to pinpoint it, or even, when conception takes place?It shouldn't even come up in the discussion of when it is and when it is not safe to abort. The best way to approach that, would be to go with the concensus from the medical community. That way no one probes into the soul issue and there is no need to require evidence from people of faith - who, as you admit, can't show any evidence for what they claim. True, true. I'll say it better then: They are practically the same thing. I don't follow this. Doesn't a haploid have the same potential to be a person as a daploid?If my memory serves me right, isn't that potential the reason why condoms were (and pretty much still are) considered a sin in the Catholic faith?- Oni

Even worse, it shouldn't come up in a discussion on the legality of abortion. But it can fit in a discussion of the morality of it, when a person is defined as a body and a soul. I don't think so; it doesn't have enough chromosomes, no? Nah, they just don't want you to have fun. Sex is for procreation. I haven't read anything about it having to do with the sperm's potential to be a person.

Hey Oni,I agree with most of what you've said here; I'm firmly pro-choice (vs. pro-abortion, which, as someone said, I don't think anyone really is).But I think you're painting with an awfully wide brush when you assert that no one gives a shit about anything except ourownselfs. You do seem to step back a bit when you said Which seems a bit more reasonable to me, IMHO. I think most people are, at least in part, concerned about things which to them are unacceptible, morally or otherwise. However, that's not to say they care enough to do anything about it. Whether due to lack of financial means or other logistical difficulties a person will not commit their resources in order to fix a (admittedly subjective) wrong does not necessarily make that person self-centered, as you suggest. It may, but then again, it may not.Which brings up another issue. Where does the line between altruism and self-centeredness exist? If I choose to not give money to Haiti and instead donate to the March of Dimes, does that mean I'm self-centered in regard to Haiti? Or if I only give $20 because that's what I can afford, or I only give $20 because that's all I want to give even if I'm flush? It seems to me that the position of the line is fuzzy and subjective.I entirely agree with you, though, about the fact that not enough is done for single moms after the birth of an unaborted baby. I also agree with your overpopulation argument and how that relates to any unsupported objections to abortion. But like the above examples, I would argue that most people do genuinely care about unborn children, as well as what happens to them after birth. But apparently, just not enough to actually do anything about it.Have a good one, Oni.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

And I totally agree, our human nature is so strong that many cannot repress it, and for those that do, it may just bring about something worse in the future.But this is why the approach of christianity to the human condition is radically different: it does not tell us to try and salvage this human nature through behavior manipulation, trying to subdue it by the power of our will. It tells us that this old nature is forever lost, unsalvagable, and that what we need is a new nature, one that hasn't been tainted by sin. This is what christianity proposes through Jesus Christ.Ok so I don't want to seem like I'm preaching or anything, but when talking about the selfishness of the human heart, this is the answer that worldview I believe is true gives. It is not do-able because of our selfishness. Because there is nothing about this reality that makes it impossible to do. There is enough food and ressources on this planet to sustain twice the human population there is now. Of course, I understand the reasoning. And if I was atheist, I would arrive at the same conclusion as you do. This is even if I acknowledged the foetus was human, I would still be un avor of abortion.But, in addition to all the factors you consider when looking at the issue, I have other factors to consider that come from my christian worldview. If the foetus is a human being, and it has a soul, I cannot simply justify to terminate it for practical reasons. I do it because it is the morally right thing to do. And I discern right from wrong through christianity.Essentially, it is the same as you (I hope). You do good for goodness sake. But you simply identify what is good and what isn't on different basis that I do.Of course, if you do good for the advantages it will give you, then it is different. But if that were the case, how could you judge a christian who does it for the sky-daddy ? Would it not be the same thing ?

Yes, but I say that christianity i the answer to this human selfishness. I do what I can within the limits the society has set on me. Society requires that I educate myself, so I cannot give all my money and time for humanitary causes. But I do my part, in a christian community that tries also to do it's part.Don't worry, in my human nature I would need to do much less then that to inconvenience myself. I also have this pitiless indifference inside me that we all do with which I could go around my life and not feel an once of shame with what happens anywhere else in the world. As I said to onifre, if it is a human being with a soul, I cannot just dispose of it for practical purposes.But in any case, I perfectly understand your reasoning. But the fault I think is that you assume God willfully sends people to some sort of eternal damnation. But this isn't the case, God is bounded by his own nature. He cannot do something that would go against his nature, and so he cannot, being holy, allow in his presence something that is sinful. And so what prevents us from going in his presence, and what condemns us to eternal seperation from him, is our own sinful human nature.Now he provided us with a way of cleaning ourselves, but he can't force us to do it. That is why he is pleading for us to be reconciled with him.How does this relate to an unborn ? It is that it is their sinful nature who prevents them from entering God's presence, not his lack of love for them. And they received this sinful nature through humanity and Adam, not God.

She wasn't in a bad situation to have a child, although maybe not ideal. But she wasn't a drug addict, and she had to good parents You are free to believ me or not I guess. But I'm telling this was essentially what the ''pro-choice certification'' was about. It was discussed for two weeks in the news here.

It was a tv interview done with a Quebec pro-choice doctor, in reaction to a statement by a well-known european pro-choice woman who claimed that, to her, late abortions were murders.The doctors point was that legally, it wasn't murder, because of what the law said. And he gave that as an example.I'm trying to find the interview, but I don't remember how long ago I saw it, nor who the doctor was, nor on what channel. And in any case, it will be in french. So you are free to not believe me I guess.

But the definition of pro-abortion is simply that you are infavor of it being legal.Pro-abortion - definition of pro-abortion by The Free DictionaryProabortion Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comhttp://www.yourdictionary.com/pro-abortionSo, if you are in favor that abortion be legal, you are pro-abortion.

And of course, we also have a program for fostering children in Haiti, which wasn't taken into account. And when I say less then a thousand, it means more around 700-800. And when I say over a million, that was 2 years ago and it was more like 1,2M.And that doesn't take into account what we do in Africa, nor what we do in our own backyard for the poverty in quebec.But as you said, the point is not for me to brag about it. That is why it isn't a numbers game. And I fully realize that whatever number I put up, it will be small in comparison to what we pay ourselves. But is was to show onifre that it wasn't true no one cared about haiti before the earthquake. In fact, we had over 60 people over there when the earthquake hit.

The obvious theological debate here is for another thread, but just for now, do you then believe that all who die who have not accepted Jesus will remain separate from God, including all unborn (through both natural and intervention) and all children who die in their infancy? If you do, then your objections to abortion are obvious.

I believe this to be the case.

Yes, well the point was more to point out that your saying so cannot be seen as evidence. We don't know what the situation was like. I'm not saying that you would deliberately lie to us, but all observations are coloured through the eyes of the beholder. She was your friend, people do not think badly of their friends, even if there is reason to.I'm not saying she was a bad person. All I'm saying is that we really have no basis for judging the accuracy of this tale, which makes it rather pointless to use. I'm sure that you are relating the story as you see it. But that's exactly the problem. You are an unreliable witness in this case. I'm not saying you are unreliable in general, just that your view of things (you are against abortion, you want your friend to keep the baby, you were not present during the counselling session), makes it so that this tale is useless as evidence one way or the other. Basically all anecdotal evidence is. Which is why it is pointless to use it.So, let's stick to the facts, ok?Why do you want to rob women of the choice of what happens to their body?

Do you want abortion to be illegal/criminalized? Why?