|
Author
|
Topic: The bible and abortion
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
|
Message 16 of 109 (57078)
09-23-2003 1:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Trump won
09-22-2003 8:24 PM
|
|
messenjaH writes: Oh so now killing a human being that is inside a womb is justified because the people who preach about abortion are crazy? I hope this post I am replying to is a joke because what I just read is so sad it makes me want to cry. Well the last half about protesters being so crazy was a joke, but it seems I didn't make it very well. I meant to imply they are so crazy they don't even know WHY THEY ARE PROTESTING (as in which biblical passage they are using). This was not to imply that because they are so crazy discussions on the morality of abortion have been decided. So let's get everything back on track. You seem to suggest by your answer to the first part of my post that the Biblical reason for not allowing abortions is primarily because it is considered a person. Is it because of "God knowing someone in the womb", or are there more specific passages? ------------------ holmes
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by Trump won, posted 09-22-2003 8:24 PM | | Trump won has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 50 by Trump won, posted 09-24-2003 8:28 PM | | Silent H has replied |
|
Gemster
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 17 of 109 (57083)
09-23-2003 1:38 AM
|
|
|
I think to have a fuller understanding of why God is opposed to abortion, we need to look at the bigger picture. The bible says that we should avoid the corruption that is in the world because of lust. He gives us guidelines in how to make our lives more abundant, that is he desires that before indulging in sex we should be in covenant relationship with the person (marriage) we intend to sleep with. why because the best way to demonstrate to someone that your love them is to enter into a covenant commitment. To make a hasty generalization of sorts, sex outside of marriage is often more focused on pleasure than the expression of love. When a woman becomes pregnant and there is not that commitment then a baby is often unwanted, as it came as a result of a persons decision to live a life for themselves outside of Gods will.
I have thought of a formula to express Gods plan for sexual intimacy
Sex without love is abuse. That is why God is so hard on sexual immorality, because we abuse ourselves and the object of our lust.
Gods standards of morality are high but we ignore them at the risk of our own pain. The bible may not speak about abortion but it talks continuously about the root of abortion. Not walking in the light of his love.
|
Rei
Member (Idle past 7040 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: 09-03-2003
|
|
|
Message 18 of 109 (57086)
09-23-2003 1:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Trump won
09-22-2003 8:24 PM
|
|
Messenjah: Will you not respond to why God considers killing a person to be worthy of death, but causing a [i]forced abortion[i] to be merely a fineable offense? I would appreciate a response. ------------------ "Illuminant light, illuminate me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by Trump won, posted 09-22-2003 8:24 PM | | Trump won has not replied |
|
Rei
Member (Idle past 7040 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: 09-03-2003
|
|
Message 19 of 109 (57090)
09-23-2003 1:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by Yaro
09-22-2003 9:58 PM
|
|
Yaro: One way to look at things. If you took a clump of human cells and destroyed them - just any old clump of cells - would that be a tragedy? Your answer is undoubtedly "no". Destroying a unique organism, a unique combination of DNA (such as a dandelion, or a paramecium) - is that a tragedy? Again, the answer is undoubtedly "no". And yet, early term abortion is merely the combination of these two. When moral issues come in is a) the psychological effect on the woman, and b) when the child reaches a level of conscious thought. The heart begins beating at, what, 6 weeks? And yet, even mites have a beating heart. The simplest stimulus-response mechanisms aren't until the second trimester, and most of them in the third. In short, I fail to see the moral issue - if there is no psychological risk to the woman getting the abortion - for an early term abortion. On the other hand, this "controversy" has led to some horrible consequences. I know someone who, at age 14, slowly starved herself until she miscarried so that her parents wouldn't have to find out, because she would have needed their permission to get an abortion. It took three months. She ended up having to have a friend drive her to Vancouver to get her cleaned out (that didn't take parental permission...  ). I've heard worse. Such as suicides. I'm so thankful that she didn't take that route... It is because of this that I have proportionally little tolerance to the religious right on this issue. I hope you can understand. ------------------ "Illuminant light, illuminate me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by Yaro, posted 09-22-2003 9:58 PM | | Yaro has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 20 by Yaro, posted 09-23-2003 2:08 AM | | Rei has not replied | | | Message 21 by John, posted 09-23-2003 10:44 AM | | Rei has not replied |
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6523 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
|
|
Message 20 of 109 (57097)
09-23-2003 2:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by Rei
09-23-2003 1:51 AM
|
|
Hey Rei, I understand the arguments thuroughly, I can see very legitamet reasons for it, and in no way think it should be illigal. Yet I am a bit 'new aged' in alot of my thought, I think all organizims are special. Heck, to me all life is special, especially human life. I remember once in a Biology class I took, we were studying embryo development, and as a simple expiriment we incubated eggs to crack them open and see the diffrent stages of development. We didn't incubate them long enugh to develop much, but cracking the egg and zooming in on the little red dot in the yoke with our microscope revealed something wonderous. There was a beating heart, gradually slowing down, untill it seased to beat all together. Life, from essentially non-living matter. I dunno, we all walked out of that Lab feeling a bit bummed. One girl broke down and cried midway thrugh it. You see, I don't condemn the practice, and I recognize that in this world death is a necessity for things to keep on living, yet there is something sacred and important about life, that permiates even to it's simplest forms. That's the sort of respect I wish people had. The understanding that you are ending something, cutting away a potential, a living thing, no matter how simple or unformed it is. That's where I'm comming from, I'm not a religious person at all.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by Rei, posted 09-23-2003 1:51 AM | | Rei has not replied |
|
John
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 21 of 109 (57194)
09-23-2003 10:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by Rei
09-23-2003 1:51 AM
|
|
quote:
The heart begins beating at, what, 6 weeks? And yet, even mites have a beating heart. The simplest stimulus-response mechanisms aren't until the second trimester, and most of them in the third.
A primatology/forensic anthropology professor of mine pitched in his opinion one day in class. We are human because of our brain. Fetal brains don't display a brain wave pattern resembling a human pattern until about month or so before birth. That is when we become human. The following isn't very detailed but it does note when brain waves become organized.
Page not found - CBC Trust ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by Rei, posted 09-23-2003 1:51 AM | | Rei has not replied |
|
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4871 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: 07-21-2003
|
|
|
Message 22 of 109 (57195)
09-23-2003 11:22 AM
|
|
|
I'm torn on this issue. Shouldn't the fact that the embryo has a large potential to become a human with brain function weigh in on our decision as to whether we can terminate it?
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 23 of 109 (57196)
09-23-2003 11:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by JustinC
09-23-2003 11:22 AM
|
|
Every time a man masturbates, or a woman ovulates, it had the potential to be a human with brain function. The logical result of this argument is that we should be forcibly impregnating women from the time of their first period. Slightly beforehand even, just to be on the safe side.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by JustinC, posted 09-23-2003 11:22 AM | | JustinC has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 24 by Dr Jack, posted 09-23-2003 11:57 AM | | Dan Carroll has replied | | | Message 25 by JustinC, posted 09-23-2003 11:58 AM | | Dan Carroll has replied |
|
Dr Jack
Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: 07-14-2003 Member Rating: 8.3
|
That's an excessive generalisation, Dan. A fetus will become a human if not aborted. Well, more or less baring a natural miscarriage, etc. A sperm, or an egg, won't. In fact it doesn't even contain a full genome. That's a significant difference. I wrote my thoughts down on this issue elsewhere, I'll repost them now
"Mr Jack" writes: I'm going to start with a sentence that may be a little contraversial. Abortion has exactly zero to do with women's rights. That's right. Zero. The real issue is only one of the whether a fetus, or embryo, is a human being. If it is then killing it is wrong, and should be illegal. Whatever the mother feels or suffers. We do not allow someone to kill their baby because it screams, keeps them awake, puts a dampner on their social life, or any such thing. If on the other hand it is not 'human' then we should have no concerns. A Woman's 'right to choose' has nothing to do with it. So then, let us address the question of is a Fetus (or embryo) human or not? Some claim that a fetus is just a 'blob of cells'. This is clearly nonsense, by twelve weeks a fetus is recognisably human. You can see the feet, and hands, even make out the beginnings of a face. This is no 'blob of cells'. A zero-day old 'baby' is a bunch of cells, a freshly born baby is human. Along the way it slowly develops all of the features that make us human, many can be recognised from surprisingly early on. While still in the womb babies are known to respond to different sounds in the environment, and even what the mother is eating, or drinking. The question is at what point does it become a human? My answer is that there is no point. That zero-day old is 0% human, and that baby is 100% human, along the way it moves along that scale - probably not in a linear fashion. (Are premature babies fully human and all that?) Where does this leave abortion? I think abortion is not something we should ever take lightly. We should restrict abortion based on the age of the fetus, and attempt to use methods of abortion that do not inflict unnecessary pain on the fetus just as we attempt to slaughter livestock humanely. Finally I believe we should extend the time window for abortion for rape, and incest victims and in cases where the child is found to be disabled or malformed. This isn't too far from current abortion legalislation, at least in my country. But I think the window should probably be narrowed some, maybe down to 14, or 16 weeks. Although this may already have wondered off topic...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-23-2003 11:27 AM | | Dan Carroll has replied |
|
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4871 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: 07-21-2003
|
Yes, I'm well aware of this complication. All I can say is that the chances of particular sperm impregnating an egg is vanishingly small. So a sperm's potential and an egg's potential of becoming a human are very small. Once conception occurs though, the potential becomes much much greater that it will develop into a full grown human. It is hard to dichotomize a continuum into 'not enough potential' and 'enough potential', but I still feel that a zygote should be able to develop. Whose to say that brain function is the indication of whether a human should be aborted or not? How is that any less arbitrary than saying, "A new born baby cannot think like an adult human, so we have the right to kill it." It's just at a different developmental stage than the rest of us, and developmental stage doesn't seem to indicate moral status. I like to live by the Golden Rule, although I'm not quite sure it can apply to zygotes and hypothetical humans. Would you of wanted someone to abort you when you were developing? Would this potential human want to get aborted if it had the chance? Aren't you basically denying a humans right to existance by aborting them before they can develop? JustinC [This message has been edited by JustinCy, 09-23-2003]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-23-2003 11:27 AM | | Dan Carroll has replied |
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 26 of 109 (57200)
09-23-2003 12:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 25 by JustinC
09-23-2003 11:58 AM
|
|
quote:
Yes, I'm well aware of this complication. All I can say is that the chances of particular sperm impregnating an egg is vanishingly small.
But the chances of a full load of semen is quite another story. I can't actually speak for anyone else, but I know that when I ejaculate, considerably more than one sperm cell comes out.
quote:
Would you of wanted someone to abort you when you were developing?
What are you asking? Would I, a thinking human, want to be aborted, would would proto-Dan, the blob of cells in his mother's womb, have wanted to be aborted? Well, I can tell you that I would certainly not want to be aborted. But I really don't think proto-Dan would have had an opinion on the subject, any more than the grass really has an opinion when you use the lawnmower.
quote:
Aren't you basically denying a humans right to existance by aborting them before they can develop?
You can't deny rights to something that doesn't exist. Honestly here... my girlfriend and I have been together for three and a half years. In that time, we could feasibly have had two children, possibly upwards of three or four. I could knocked her up at least twice. There are no odds, or ambiguous potential on that. To my knowledge, neither of us are infertile, and we have sex quite regularly. So that's two humans denied the right to exist by our murderous use of birth control, if we stick with this argument. Meanwhile, there's a girl in the apartment across the hall. I could easily be impregnating her as well. No vague possibilities here; enough unprotected sex and I would impregnate her. Am I denying a potential human the right to life by not doing so?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by JustinC, posted 09-23-2003 11:58 AM | | JustinC has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 33 by JustinC, posted 09-23-2003 10:22 PM | | Dan Carroll has replied |
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 27 of 109 (57201)
09-23-2003 12:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Jack
09-23-2003 11:57 AM
|
|
quote:
That's an excessive generalisation, Dan. A fetus will become a human if not aborted. Well, more or less baring a natural miscarriage, etc. A sperm, or an egg, won't. In fact it doesn't even contain a full genome. That's a significant difference.
How come? There is sperm in my testicles. There is an egg in my girlfriend's fallopian tubes. Keep adding sperm to egg, and it will become a human as well. By not combining the sperm with the egg, are we denying people the right to live? Bring on the ladies! I've got to stand up for the rights of some potential people! 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by Dr Jack, posted 09-23-2003 11:57 AM | | Dr Jack has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 29 by Dr Jack, posted 09-23-2003 12:37 PM | | Dan Carroll has replied |
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 28 of 109 (57203)
09-23-2003 12:33 PM
|
|
|
I realize that I'm being smarmy. In all seriousness, I'm against second-trimester abortions for the simple reason that at that point I don't know whether the fetus has become human life or not. Best to err on the side of caution, I think, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask a woman to make up her mind after missing her third period. It's this pre-emptive denying of life idea I take issue with.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 34 by JustinC, posted 09-23-2003 10:29 PM | | Dan Carroll has not replied |
|
Dr Jack
Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: 07-14-2003 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Why stop at sperm though? When your girlfriend is eating her toast that toast could be contributing to a new life! It's clearly murder not to eat the toast!
How come? There is sperm in my testicles. There is an egg in my girlfriend's fallopian tubes. Keep adding sperm to egg, and it will become a human as well. By not combining the sperm with the egg, are we denying people the right to live? You are not intervening in an already started process. You are simply not starting that process. The two are in no way equivalent.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-23-2003 12:27 PM | | Dan Carroll has replied |
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 30 of 109 (57205)
09-23-2003 12:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 29 by Dr Jack
09-23-2003 12:37 PM
|
|
quote:
Why stop at sperm though? When your girlfriend is eating her toast that toast could be contributing to a new life! It's clearly murder not to eat the toast!
Yes! This is why I feel this argument is silly.
quote:
You are not intervening in an already started process. You are simply not starting that process. The two are in no way equivalent.
I could have sworn that her menstrual cycle and my ejaculation were the start of the process.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by Dr Jack, posted 09-23-2003 12:37 PM | | Dr Jack has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2