DescentBB

CUDA wrote:Jeff in all due respect that argument is as dumb as saying if you die in a Jihad you go straight to heaven with 100 virgins.

I think that you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not necessarily saying that I personally believe that anyone goes to heaven. However, I am talking to people relative to their own beliefs. If you were Muslim, I might pose a similar question (see below) concerning Jihad. However, since you're not, the question is moot.

Besides, it's an entirely different scenario. Jihad concerns one's own salvation. If I kill X number of people, I get to go to heaven. However, abortion concerns others' salvation. If I kill X number of people, they will go to heaven. You can see how the two examples are distinctly different. You can imagine how Muslim extremists might be even more extreme if they thought that they were saving whom they killed, so why do Christians not share the same sentiment concerning abortion?

CUDA wrote:Thou shalt not kill. or murder depending on your translation.

Well, let's try to stay out of translational issues.

If you're going to stick with a strict no-killing approach, you're going to quickly run into biblical contradictions, such as when God commanded some people to kill others for whatever reason. Clearly some killing is justified then. If you're going to try to go with a no-murdering approach, I think you're going to be stuck trying to come up with an acceptable definition of murder. If it's something along the lines of "don't kill innocents," I think you're going to once again run into biblical contradiction, such as when God ordered people to kill babies. Surely these people were not sinning when they were killing the babies, so the definition "don't kill innocents" is not satisfactory.

CUDA wrote:By the logic your useing, whats the difference in letting the baby be born then putting it in a waste basket to starve to death?

I don't think that this is at all the best approach to the problem, but if it were for some reason the only available option, I'd think that it'd be better to starve for a day than to burn in hell for a billion.

I think that if Christianity is correct, abortion has single-handedly saved more souls than any evangelist could have ever dreamed. I also wouldn't be surprised if aborted and other infant deaths comprised the chief population of heaven.

You make a good point Lothar, but I didn't make myself clear. I want to put all my points hand in hand with the fact of an unborn baby. I think once a baby is released from the mother and living independently (i.e. umbilical cord cut) it is wrong to kill it. Until then, it isn't. You cannot compare abortion and my point to killing Jews or Blacks, because the baby has not experienced anything, and doesn't have any memories, and is not being killed for it's RACE OR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS but for the pain it will cause both parties .

gotta go, ill finsih this later

\"such as when God ordered people to kill babies\"

When and where.

Jeff250 wrote:I think that if Christianity is correct, abortion has single-handedly saved more souls than any evangelist could have ever dreamed. I also wouldn't be surprised if aborted and other infant deaths comprised the chief population of heaven.

Interesting way to validate genocide.

btw, it is estimated that approx 40,000+ women a year are killed and maimed/or due to abortions. There are other options; better options. In a closed adoption, the child never, NEVER needs to know it was adopted or why. Even if it did, life is better decision.

The S.D. bill allows for threat to the mother's life. In which case, I'm sure it would be done in a hospital. Several years ago, my cousin became pregnant and her body started to reject the pregnancy as a form of infection. (great time to forget the name of the condition, huh?)It was suggested that she abort the pregnacy. It wasn't easy but she made it and so did her little boy. That was her second and the condition had greatly increased in severity. They have decided not to have any more. (duh, as this last one nearly killed her) but the point is that if you Truely want a child, you will do everyting in your power to see that it is born and survives. Those who don't "opt out". The world has become full of fearful and lazy individuals and couples. It's like Nirvana said earlier in this thread:

Nirvana wrote:Abortion is mostly about shirking responsibility, not about rape; people want to play without having to pay

Incidentally, I noticed that no one refuted his post. So I gather that everyone that has posted thus far is in agreement with those statistics? If so, then where's the argument? These others outside of rape made their decision ... already.
With those numbers in mind, the need for an abortion would be/is extaordinarily low. Enough so that hospitals and Dr.s could make a reasonable case by case decision without Federal or State involvement.

Lothar wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Lothar......Then are you willing to say that you will allow termination of this life within 35 days according to Zurick? Either you do or you don't.

I can respect those who think it's OK, but I'd prefer not to allow it. Since I don't consider it the main or most important issue, it would be an acceptable compromise to me.

Now, for a no lengthy explanation pair of questions for you:

1) why does it matter that the girl was a rape victim? (See Kilarin's post.)

2) Are you willing to say you wouldn't allow termination after 35 days, even in case of rape? (Or 40 days, 26 days, etc.)?

For Money!: why would abortion be OK but killing an infant wouldn't be? In either case, you're "saving it from it's misery of being poor with an uneducated, weak provider". Or would you say it's OK to kill a 10-year-old if its parents couldn't provide a good life? What about people killing Jews to save them from the misery of being Jews, or killing blacks to save them from the misery of being black, or killing gays to save them from the misery of being gay? (We all know, there are people out there who think like that!)

In other words... where do you draw the line, and why? When is it OK to kill someone to save them from an existance you'd consider miserable, and when is it not?

EDIT: or, consider the question asked another way: why is it OK to kill someone just because it would be difficult to care for them and they might not have as good of a life as you'd like them to have?

Answer to question 1:
Because this was NOT an act between two people who made a mistake. It was a forced abduction and rape against her will and she should not have to bear the responsibility of going thru labor at 12 or 13 still holding on to her doll, being crucified in school, and basically having her life ruined.

Answer to question 2:
Yes, I would not allow abortion after 40 days referring to Zuricks post.

I'm more concerned with your response... You prefer not to allow it, but are willing to compromise. I want to know what your vote would have been if you were the govenor of South Dakota. Would you allow for abortion under 40 days or not.

If you know anything about me at all, you will know by my past posts that I hold all children close to my heart. But I do with that 13 year old too.

Bettina

Behemoth wrote:"such as when God ordered people to kill babies"

When and where.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=31
3 "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

This is one example where infants are specifically ordered to death. There are a lot of other examples where men, women, and children are ordered to be killed, but I suppose that a stickler might argue that this somehow does not include infants.

Like I suggested earlier, I'm sure there's some way to justify this under Christian doctrine. But my point is that infanticide is somehow justifiable under Christian doctrine.

Jeff250 wrote:I think that if Christianity is correct, abortion has single-handedly saved more souls than any evangelist could have ever dreamed.

You're assuming there's a single, unified, "correct Christian position" on what happens to babies who die -- that they go to heaven.

I don't remember Jesus or any passage in the Bible ever addressing the question. There's nothing about what happens to babies who die, or what happens to that guy on a desert island who never hears of Jesus, or what happens to retarded people, or what happens to Martians or Klingons. God doesn't seem interested in telling us what happens to others who don't have the chance or ability to respond to Him; He only seems interested in telling us how we personally should respond. We can sort of guess at what happens to others, but there's not really a "correct Christian position" on what happens to babies when they die. Whatever position we come to is just philosophy combined with guessing.

A lot of people conclude anyone who dies before they're old enough to know right from wrong automatically goes to heaven. Others believe such people just cease to exist, or that they never had a soul in the first place. Still others believe they get another chance through reincarnation, an alternate universe, some sort of simulation, or God just knowing how they *would have* done. So I don't think you can argue that abortion leads to those people all being saved, because we just don't know what happens to them.

On the other hand, we do know that God tends to get very angry at people for harming or killing the innocent. That's one of the major themes throughout the Bible. (We also have some indication that children aren't always "innocent" in God's eyes, sometimes due simply to their place of birth.) Furthermore, if God wanted to make people start out in heaven, I don't think He'd have bothered making the universe -- He'd have just spawned souls directly into heaven. God obviously considered it better for people to start on earth with only a chance of joining Him in heaven than for everyone to start in heaven. All that is to say, "kill the innocent so they'll make it straight to heaven" isn't even a remotely valid Christian position.

(Not really on topic, but related: I did once hear a Christian comedy routine by Mike Warnke that went something like this:

"If you're easily offended, you're in the right place, because I'm going to offend you. Now, if anybody attempts to approach the stage to rebuke me, let me warn you, there are Hells Angels standing guard right under the edge of the stage here. I figure, someone as righteous as you needs to be sent to meet with God right away so that you won't have any time to backslide.")

Money! wrote:I think once a baby is released from the mother and living independently (i.e. umbilical cord cut) it is wrong to kill it. Until then, it isn't. You cannot compare abortion and my point to killing Jews or Blacks, because the baby has not experienced anything, and doesn't have any memories, and is not being killed for it's RACE OR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS but for the pain it will cause both parties .

So you're saying a baby, 5 seconds before it's born, hasn't "experienced anything" and therefore it's still OK to kill it? Once the cord is cut, the baby magically begins "experiencing things"? I think you should study a bit more biology.

As Zuruck mentioned, some neural activity begins only a few weeks in to pregnancy. By week 8, there is a clear pain response and clear brain waves. By 20-24 weeks the brain is reasonably well formed. I can respect someone taking a principled stand at any of these phases, because it actually makes sense to say the baby doesn't experience things before it has a brain. But it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to say its experience begins when the cord is cut.

Remember, there are those who would argue blacks or Jews or whoever else aren't real people, that they're "sons of monkeys and pigs", that killing them will save them the pain of life, or at the very least that killing them will save someone else some pain. There are those who argue the same with the retarded -- that it's better to kill someone with Downs Syndrome than let him experience life that doesn't meet our standards. How arrogant! Yet you make the same argument with respect to someone who would be poor and whose parents wouldn't want them. Who are you to say that any particular person will have a life not worth living? Who are you to say that, because someone won't have parents who love them, or will have limited mental capacity, or will be born paralyzed, that their life is worthless?

Bettina wrote:Answer to question 1:
Because this was NOT an act between two people who made a mistake. It was a forced abduction and rape against her will and she should not have to bear the responsibility of going thru labor at 12 or 13 still holding on to her doll, being crucified in school, and basically having her life ruined.

But if it's just a blob of tissue, why does that matter?

If it's just a blob of tissue, then rape victims shouldn't have to bear the responsibility... but neither should people who were fooling around and accidentally got pregnant. If it's just a blob of tissue, then it doesn't matter how it was formed, it's OK to kill it. Why force a 13 year old who made a mistake to have her life ruined?

To get at the heart of the matter: can you give me a principled reason why rape victims should be able to have abortions AND why non-rape victims shouldn't?

You prefer not to allow it, but are willing to compromise. I want to know what your vote would have been if you were the govenor of South Dakota. Would you allow for abortion under 40 days or not.

It's not up to the governor to decide that. It's only up to him to decide whether to vote "yes" or "no" on the bill he's been handed. IIRC, his did not allow abortion under 40 days.

I'd have voted "yes" on that bill. I'd have also voted "yes" on a bill that did allow for abortions under 40 days. Yes, it might force the 13 year old girl who isn't ready to have a baby to have one, and it might ruin her life. But on the other hand, it will protect thousands of babies each year. One life gets ruined, while thousands are saved. That's a trade I'm willing to make.

My next step would be to see what we could do for the 13 year old rape victim so that her life wouldn't be ruined by having a baby. I'm not in the life-ruining business. If I passed a bill I knew would make a mess of some people's lives I'd also do what I could to make sure their lives didn't get messed up too badly.

@ CUDA and Duper re: mother mortality rates

What makes you believe the prediction that mother mortality will increase is completely bogus? If you look at mother mortality rates immediately before and after abortion was legalized, you will see a dramatic drop. This is pretty hard to refute. So, the alarming rate of mothers harmed during abortion procedures today can only be expected to increase, not decrease. I'm not saying you should agree with the mortality argument (see the assassination example), but you can't dismiss it as unreal.

Re: the \"most abortions are just late birth control\" argument,

That may be true, but it's just a case of majority vs minority. In the US we've always been about treating all citizens equally, not just majorities. The legal code has a hell of a lot to say about the rights of arrested people, but most people in the US haven't been arrested. So why do we spend so much effort specifying how to protect these people? Because we're worried about the rights of every individual, not just the majority. We need our laws to be just for all people, not most people.

Oh yeah, and what about cases when birth control measures were used but failed? The success rate of various birth control methods can be pretty low, especially the rhythm method advocated by the Catholic church. So there's a lot of people who weren't trying to \"play without paying.\"

Re: Kilrain's long post,

That seems to sum it up pretty well, and we're seeing those same assumptions in most subsequent posts. For example, Lothar assumes human life begins before brain activity, while Money thinks it starts after umbilical separation. We're comparing apples and oranges, or speaking different languages, or something.

Re: the 35/40-day compromise,

Just like Lothar, I dislike it but might accept it, and as Kilrain said that may be an indication that it's a pretty good compromise. However, it raises the matter of detection. Women might not know they are pregnant within 35 days; for example a 13-year old who has been getting raped by her stepdad for the past 4 years probably wouldn't think or even know to check. So this compromise is actually skewed towareds the pro-life side, since so many pregnancies will go undetected until it's too late.

Re: Jeff's theory,

Don't take it too seriously, folks. It's just meant to point out the inconsistencies inherent in various religions. And also meant to rile up some Christians perhaps. I don't think Jeff is advocating baby murder. Playing devil's advocate is healthy and productive.

Lothar wrote:To get at the heart of the matter: can you give me a principled reason why rape victims should be able to have abortions AND why non-rape victims shouldn't?

I did already, if by "non-rape victims" you mean two people getting too hot in the back seat of a car and making a mistake. They took a chance and lost, no matter how dumb and immature they were, they now bear the responsibility. It was consentual... otherwise its rape.

By "rape victims"....refer to the little girl and her doll.

Thats the difference. One was with a boy dreaming of sex, the other was sleeping in her bed dreaming of dolls.

Bettina

P.S. I'm an adult now so if threads like these go to the NHB, I will go there if I have to, to defend my position.

Genghis wrote:If you look at mother mortality rates immediately before and after abortion was legalized, you will see a dramatic drop.

This is questionable, at best. Where exactly do you get good statistics on mortality rates before abortion was legalized? If people were keeping good records of their illegal practices I'd be surprised.

In the US we've always been about treating all citizens equally, not just majorities.... what about cases when birth control measures were used but failed?

But we don't make laws that say "because this activity is OK on rare occasions, we'll make it completely legal in all cases." Instead, we set up the law such that the activity is legal when it makes sense. Abortion (especially late term) should not be legal as just a back-up birth control method.

we're seeing those same assumptions in most subsequent posts. For example, Lothar assumes human life begins before brain activity, while Money thinks it starts after umbilical separation

I haven't actually said when I think human life (or, more accurately, personhood) begins.

I haven't said, because I don't know. Does it start when the first few neurons form? Does it start when the brain reaches a certain mass? Does it start when fingerprints form? Does it start as soon as the sperm DNA makes it into the nucleus of the egg? I don't know. I'm pretty sure it's somewhere between "sperm meets egg" and "the brain is fully formed at 20-24 weeks" but I don't know where.

The position I've constantly advocated is that, given that we don't know for sure and are bound to make some errors, it's best to err in the safe direction. I think the safest is to err all the way to conception, but I can respect those who choose to draw the line at 5 weeks or 8 weeks or even 20 weeks, and I think 5-8 weeks would be a very reasonable timeframe to base laws around.

it raises the matter of detection. Women might not know they are pregnant within 35 days; for example a 13-year old who has been getting raped by her stepdad for the past 4 years probably wouldn't think or even know to check. So this compromise is actually skewed towareds the pro-life side, since so many pregnancies will go undetected until it's too late.

Agreed. If you're going to compromise, I think that's the right direction to compromise. In the vast majority of cases, 35 days is long enough anyway. In the few exceptions, like the example given above, those should be dealt with as exceptions. (Exceptions make for bad law!)

I don't think Jeff is advocating baby murder. Playing devil's advocate is healthy and productive.

I agree. I'm just saying, I think Jeff's "devil's advocate" position is not a very effective one because of a number of errors he makes. (It's kind of like when people try to use the Bible to justify racism... yeah, I'm sure if you twist it badly enough you can do that, but you don't really prove anything. You just distract people from the issue at hand.)

Bet51987 wrote:

Lothar wrote:To get at the heart of the matter: can you give me a principled reason why rape victims should be able to have abortions AND why non-rape victims shouldn't?

I did already, if by "non-rape victims" you mean two people getting too hot in the back seat of a car and making a mistake. They took a chance and lost, no matter how dumb and immature they were, they now bear the responsibility.

If that thing inside is just a blob of tissue, why should that girl "bear the responsibility" for making it? If it was dumb and immature, and furthermore there's nothing morally wrong with killing the thing inside her, why not let her kill it rather than ruining her life over a dumb and immature mistake?

That's what I don't get, or rather, where I think your argument is indefensible. If the fetus at X weeks doesn't deserve protection, then we don't need a "rape" exception, we should just allow all abortions at X weeks or less; there's no reason to force *anyone* to continue a pregnancy at that stage whether it's their fault or not. Conversely, if abortion isn't OK in non-rape cases, then you're saying the fetus normally deserves to be protected, in which case making an exception for rape means you're removing protection for it based on its father's actions. You're saying it doesn't deserve to live precisely because of who its father was.

I don't think "responsibility" is a valid principle on which to draw the line here. It's either irrelevant (if it's "just a blob of tissue") or else it's trumped by a greater principle (if it's actually a person.)

Genghis wrote:Oh yeah, and what about cases when birth control measures were used but failed? The success rate of various birth control methods can be pretty low, especially the rhythm method advocated by the Catholic church. So there's a lot of people who weren't trying to "play without paying."

If you put your log in the bog, you're "playing". 99.9% isn't a guarantee.

Lothar wrote:God doesn't seem interested in telling us what happens to others who don't have the chance or ability to respond to Him; He only seems interested in telling us how we personally should respond. We can sort of guess at what happens to others, but there's not really a "correct Christian position" on what happens to babies when they die. Whatever position we come to is just philosophy combined with guessing.

I don't deny this. In fact, in my original post, I said that "most Christians" think that killed infants go to heaven. I may even be wrong about the "most" part, but from my own experience, it seems fairly accurate, and, regardless, you should think of the recommendation as only applying to Christians who believe that killed infants go to heaven instead of just to Christians. So this may or may not apply to you.

Lothar wrote:On the other hand, we do know that God tends to get very angry at people for harming or killing the innocent. That's one of the major themes throughout the Bible. (We also have some indication that children aren't always "innocent" in God's eyes, sometimes due simply to their place of birth.) Furthermore, if God wanted to make people start out in heaven, I don't think He'd have bothered making the universe -- He'd have just spawned souls directly into heaven. God obviously considered it better for people to start on earth with only a chance of joining Him in heaven than for everyone to start in heaven. All that is to say, "kill the innocent so they'll make it straight to heaven" isn't even a remotely valid Christian position.

This is the sort of ethical condundrum that I think following God can create. Suppose that you could eternally save person X by killing him (perhaps he is going to convert to Islam), and suppose that God commands that X not be killed.

What about God's command in itself makes it something that we should follow? Or is there no such quality?

Lothar wrote:(Not really on topic, but related: I did once hear a Christian comedy routine by Mike Warnke that went something like this:

Jeff, your argument is spurious.

First, it is demonstrably not God's goal--or indeed any sort of greatest good--to maximize the number of people who get to heaven by any means. If it were, he would not give us a choice about it. Jesus, in fact, turned away some folks who wanted to follow him--and at any rate, God could get a lot more people into heaven if his standards for getting them there were a lot lower. Clearly, he doesn't share your view of the \"greatest good\".

Second, even if it were God's goal to maximize the number of people who got to heaven by any means, we as Christians are not allowed to murder to get them there.

Third, a question like, \"What about God's command in itself makes it something that we should follow?\" is so far outside of Christian morality that I'm not sure it even makes sense to ask. If you aren't committed to following and obeying God, you aren't remotely Christian--and the whole discussion is pointless. It's like saying, \"What is it about your husband that makes it okay to have sex with him but not other people?\" If you're fuzzy on the necessity of \"faithful\", I'm not sure I can have an intelligent conversation with you about \"marriage\" or that we mean the same thing by \"husband\". Likewise, if you're fuzzy on \"obedience\", your idea of what the \"God\" - \"Christian\" relationship should look like diverges so much from mine that it renders the question incoherent.

Genghis wrote:@ CUDA and Duper re: mother mortality rates

What makes you believe the prediction that mother mortality will increase is completely bogus? If you look at mother mortality rates immediately before and after abortion was legalized, you will see a dramatic drop. This is pretty hard to refute. So, the alarming rate of mothers harmed during abortion procedures today can only be expected to increase, not decrease. I'm not saying you should agree with the mortality argument (see the assassination example), but you can't dismiss it as unreal.

Because it's documented that the data used in the Roe vs Wade case concerning "back alley" abortion mortality rates was indeed fabricated. Norma McCorvey has testified to that since then. I'll spend the rest of the week to trying to find solid data. It's going to take some time to compile it.

Jeff, you're understanding of scripture is illfated. Nowhere in the new testiment is the wholesale slaughter of a peoples, advocated. It's understood that God often sent the Isealites to completely wipe out a group of people. He also used other civilizations to punish others. If you read the rest of that passage, you will find that King Saul "royally" blew it.

Duper, you're misunderstanding my point. My point in quoting that Scripture was to only (1) prove that it existed to Behemoth and (2) again demonstrate that infanticide can be good under Christian doctrine.

Drakona wrote:First, it is demonstrably not God's goal--or indeed any sort of greatest good--to maximize the number of people who get to heaven by any means.

Wait a second--I know I can be slow, but I think you're twisting my words. I said that it was our greatest good (and to clarify, our greatest good on earth) to achieve salvation, not (necessarily) God's greatest good. In other words, the greatest good I can achieve on this earth is to be saved. Would you agree or disagree with that?
(edit: Looking back on a previous post, I realize that I could have been more explicit, but I hope to have clarified that now.)

Drakona wrote:Second, even if it were God's goal to maximize the number of people who got to heaven by any means, we as Christians are not allowed to murder to get them there.

I don't deny that God commanded thou shalt not murder.

Drakona wrote:Third, a question like, "What about God's command in itself makes it something that we should follow?" is so far outside of Christian morality that I'm not sure it even makes sense to ask.

I'm just wondering if you follow God's commands for some inherent quality in them or for some other property, e.g. following God's commands will produce what's best for you, or out of gratitude, etc.

I am always amazed how many people enter this debate looking for a pencil-thin line between human and nonhuman. The stakes seem so high--we absolutely must protect all the humans and take maximum advantage of all the nonhumans. This has the effect that we end up making morals out of split hairs--and I am convinced that hair-splitting morality is always synthetic and wrong.

I know what a cat is. It's got ears, legs, a tail, whiskers, fur, and a finicky temperment. If I had a cat that was missing an ear, it'd still be a cat; if I had a cat that was missing two ears and a leg, it would still be a cat. If I had a cat without a finicky temperment, or even a dead cat, it would still be a cat. But a cat's ear by itself isn't a cat. So how about an ear and a head, or maybe a cat's brain with a frisky temperment but no body? We could make a careful definition of what a cat consists of--it must have 60% of the body mass of a cat. There you go, now I can always tell you what is and isn't a cat.

But that's synthetic and wrong.

Ignore the supernatural side for a moment--suppose souls exist in matter if they exist at all, and what you see is what you got. What makes someone human? Experience, memory, consciousness, moral essence? Are you human if you're retarded? What if you're *really* retarded? What if you're in a coma? What if it's a long-term coma? Is a dead human human? Or on the other end--a newborn infant isn't as smart as a cow--in fact, I'm pretty sure it's significantly less smart than a cow. Can I eat it then? Pre-newborns haven't breathed yet--are they still human? As you go farther and farther back, you lose more traits of humanity until you reach a point where it's no longer human. Can't feel pain? Has no fingernails? Not sure... but let's make a definition--brain waves! That's where the line is! That enables us to very definitively tell you who's human and who isn't.

But it's synthetic. And wrong.

You know why hair-splitting morals are synthetic? I'll give you another example.

\"Mom, I'm going out to play...\"
\"Did you do your homework?\"
\"Awww... but mom! Do I have to?\"
\"Do your homework!\"
\"Can I do it after I play?\"
\"No, you need to do it first or it won't get done.\"
\"What if I do half of it?\"
\"Do your homework!\"
\"Aww, but it's so long... it'll be dark by the time I get done.\"
\"How long is it?\"
\"Like six pages...\"
\"Well, then, you'd better start on it sooner, hadn't you?\"
\"But it isn't due until Friday...\"
\"Well... get a start on it at least.\"
...
\"Okay I'm done!\"
\"What? You were only at it for five minutes! Get back to work!\"
\"Awww... well how much do I have to do?\"
\"... Two pages! Go!\"

And there we have it. Two pages of homework is the morally correct amount to do before going out to play, if the assignment is six pages long and due Friday.

Isn't that synthetic? I bet the mom doesn't rigidly hold to that rule herself. Why did the she have to supply the kid a synthetic moral definition?

Definitions are fuzzy and don't always apply to every situation or serve every purpose. Morals are judgement calls, not true or false questions. Cats, human beings, and how much homework do to before going outside to play are fundamentally *complicated* things, and reducing them to a logical criterion ignores their essential nature.

So when do you need a crystal-clear definition that may not necessarily be accurate?

When you care more about being *judged* right or wrong than actually *being* right or wrong. When you care more about whether mom will let you go outside than if you're going to get your homework done by Friday. When you don't care whether what you're doing is essentially right--all you care is whether or not it's legal. Split hairs are for people who want that extra half a hair; fine lines are for drawing loopholes with.

Laws with sharp edges tend to be unnatural, but sometimes we can't do better. But *people* should be able to do better.

Frankly, I'm a hell of a lot more concerned about people saying, \"Can I kill the baby if it hasn't breathed yet? How about if it can't feel pain? How about if it doesn't have brain waves? How about if the mother was raped? How about if the mother was retarded? How about...\" than I am about whether brain waves are or aren't a sufficient feature to make someone human. The fundamental frank callousness toward human life that even pursuing such a line of inquiry shows means we're damned no matter where we draw the line.

o_0 ...whoa. Great anology Drakona.


*********

Jeff250 wrote:Duper, you're misunderstanding my point. My point in quoting that Scripture was to only (1) prove that it existed to Behemoth and (2) again demonstrate that infanticide can be good under Christian doctrine.

No, I understood. What I'm saying is that you are WRONG.

You can't pull a scripture apart like that. By the same reasoning, it could be said that God also condones Sheepicide, donkeycide, camelcide ...etc. If anything you could more correctly conclude that God occasionally advocates genocide.

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. ...

He did not singleout the killing of infants.

God wanted the land rid of a "disease" so to speak, not because they were all the product of rape.

This doesn't have a lot to do with abortion, but I'll bite. If we go too far off track, I'll split this into another thread.

Jeff250 wrote:in my original post, I said that "most Christians" think that killed infants go to heaven....

Jeff250 wrote:My point in quoting that Scripture was to ... demonstrate that infanticide can be good under Christian doctrine.

Which are you going for... what most Christians believe, or what's good Christian doctrine? They don't always line up. (Yes, the passage you quoted does order infanticide; the rest of your argument in most of this thread is based on not just bad but excessively bad doctrine, and fairly poor reasoning from that bad doctrine. I mean, seriously, it's a painfully bad argument.)

the greatest good I can achieve on this earth is to be saved.

Reasonably true, at least in the sense that "getting into heaven" (ie, spending eternity with God) would be the best end result of this life. But of course the question of whether or not killing someone prematurely guarantees them salvation is still an open question. You've based a large part of your arguments here on your assumed answer to that -- that somehow, you can sneak people into heaven by killing them before they have a chance to backslide. I'm reasonably sure it doesn't work that way, so the whole argument is both invalid *and* not really relevant anyway.

I think the ethical conundrums you say can come from following God have more to do with either following the wrong God, misunderstanding God, or following God half-heartedly than with anything inherent about following God. You can create some awfully difficult conundrums through very subtle means, regardless of the source of the moral system you're using. Slightly twist "utility" and it becomes very difficult to follow John Stuart Mill. Improperly identify the scope on the categorical imperative and Kant will leave you in a tough spot. Make an invalid assumption about heaven and God starts looking like a nutjob. No matter how good the system is, if you suck at following it, you're going to run in to trouble. That's not a flaw in the system, it's a flaw in your ability to follow.

I'm just wondering if you follow God's commands for some inherent quality in them or for some other property, e.g. following God's commands will produce what's best for you, or out of gratitude, etc.

All morals and ethics, and therefore all moral and ethical commands, come from values. The commands don't exist for their own sake; they exist for the sake of the underlying values they're intended to protect, uphold, or enhance. General commands should be viewed through the lens of "most of the time, this will uphold the value of ________" and they should be broken whenever doing something *else* will uphold that value better, or whenever some other value trumps that one. Specific commands should uphold the same values within a specific situation where the general commands may not apply.

Your own behavior is not a question of following God's commands or not, it's a question of upholding the same values as God or upholding different values. If God gave the commands correctly and you understood them correctly, then following them should uphold the aforementioned values.

Duper, I was using it as an example that infanticide "can be good under Christian doctrine," not that it always is. But I'm dropping it now anyways...

Lothar wrote:(Yes, the passage you quoted does order infanticide; the rest of your argument in most of this thread is based on not just bad but excessively bad doctrine, and fairly poor reasoning from that bad doctrine. I mean, seriously, it's a painfully bad argument.)

I've never intended that argument to be taken seriously (even though I don't think it's as fundamentally flawed as you maintain, especially when held against popular (although not necessarily correct) Christian belief) and I regret taking it as far as I did, but at the same time even in its silliness I think that there is a very redeeming question involved in it that I've already touched on for a couple of posts. So I've started a new thread here:
viewtopic.php?p=159434#159434

Drakona wrote:So when do you need a crystal-clear definition that may not necessarily be accurate?...
When you don't care whether what you're doing is essentially right--all you care is whether or not it's legal.

Actually, I agree. I believe that, except in cases of direct danger to the mothers life, abortion is wrong any time after conception. Far better to err on the side of caution when it comes to human life and worry about what exactly is and is not a person later.

BUT, the government doesn't do FUZZY very well. We can't have FUZZY laws about murder, we have to make them pretty hard lines. There are a few very limited reasons you can deliberatly kill another human being without it being a crime. And trying to make the law fuzzier around these points is very dangerous.

For example, I personally believe that there are times vigilante justice may be morally correct. But I ALSO think it should ALWAYS be illegal. The government is LOUSY at making complex moral judgments, and if the law starts allowing citizens to use the excuse "He needed killin", when no one's life or property were in direct danger, the end result will be a step backwards to the old south style lynching mobs.

So yes, I think it's absolutely horrible that we have to discuss when it's "Legal" to kill your children at all. But at the same time, I think it's VITAL that the government develop a hard and fast rule about when you become a citizen with protected rights. And it must be a hard and hair thin line, because any fuzziness will get pushed both ways for all the wrong reasons by our legal system.

We HAVE to have a decision, and yet, ANY such definition is subject to horrible abuse. The "Brain Wave" definition has the advantage of being fairly easy to define and understand, and seems to have the fewest negative possibilities down the road. It's harder for people to abuse, and so its the compromise I support.

Money! wrote: and is not being killed for it's RACE OR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS but for the pain it will cause both parties .

let's see, the US equal employment opportunity commission lists the following types of discrimination:

Age
Disability
Equal Pay
National Origin
Pregnancy
Race
Religion
Retaliation
Sex
Sexual Harassment

Lothar is saying that what you are proposing is indeed discrimination, in this case by age, and expresses examples of how this could be extended to race or religion. You can say that it isn't discrimination, but the US government disagrees with you.

Lothar wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:

Lothar wrote:To get at the heart of the matter: can you give me a principled reason why rape victims should be able to have abortions AND why non-rape victims shouldn't?

I did already, if by "non-rape victims" you mean two people getting too hot in the back seat of a car and making a mistake. They took a chance and lost, no matter how dumb and immature they were, they now bear the responsibility.

If that thing inside is just a blob of tissue, why should that girl "bear the responsibility" for making it? If it was dumb and immature, and furthermore there's nothing morally wrong with killing the thing inside her, why not let her kill it rather than ruining her life over a dumb and immature mistake?

That's what I don't get, or rather, where I think your argument is indefensible. If the fetus at X weeks doesn't deserve protection, then we don't need a "rape" exception, we should just allow all abortions at X weeks or less; there's no reason to force *anyone* to continue a pregnancy at that stage whether it's their fault or not. Conversely, if abortion isn't OK in non-rape cases, then you're saying the fetus normally deserves to be protected, in which case making an exception for rape means you're removing protection for it based on its father's actions. You're saying it doesn't deserve to live precisely because of who its father was.

I don't think "responsibility" is a valid principle on which to draw the line here. It's either irrelevant (if it's "just a blob of tissue") or else it's trumped by a greater principle (if it's actually a person.)

I'm sorry you couldn't see what I was trying to get across, but since you claim my argument is indefensible by saying that rape and non-rape cases are the same, then you force me to a tougher position. In that case, I would fight for abortion as being a right of the mother in all cases. Maybe up to 2 months after conception, rape or no rape.

This should be much clearer now, so if I have to adhere to your way of thinking then this would be my final stand on the matter. As an atheist, I have no problem with it but as a human, I wanted to make it apply only to rape, but you don't give me a choice.

Bettina

as a human, I wanted to make it apply only to rape

WHY do you want it to apply only to rape? Why \"as a human\" do you USUALLY want to protect the \"blob of tissue\", if it really is just a blob of tissue?

Either \"as a human\" you want to protect the blob of tissue (in which case its fathers deeds shouldn't matter, it should be protected regardless), or else the blob of tissue is worthless and \"as a human\" there's no reason to care about it (in which case its sperm-donor's deeds shouldn't matter, it should NOT be protected regardless). It's not that *I* give you no choice; it's that you can't rationally choose to draw the line where you want to.

Compromising on the legal point as a matter of pragmatism while saying you still WANT to make it apply only to rape doesn't really get you out of that conundrum. If you WANT to make it apply only to rape, then your concept of what the \"blob of tissue\" really is is still fuzzy. That's why I keep pushing you -- not to force you to \"adhere to my way of thinking\", but to make you have to think it through and eliminate the fuzzy spots in your reasoning.

Lothar wrote:

as a human, I wanted to make it apply only to rape

WHY do you want it to apply only to rape? Why "as a human" do you USUALLY want to protect the "blob of tissue", if it really is just a blob of tissue?

Either "as a human" you want to protect the blob of tissue (in which case its fathers deeds shouldn't matter, it should be protected regardless), or else the blob of tissue is worthless and "as a human" there's no reason to care about it (in which case its sperm-donor's deeds shouldn't matter, it should NOT be protected regardless). It's not that *I* give you no choice; it's that you can't rationally choose to draw the line where you want to.

Compromising on the legal point as a matter of pragmatism while saying you still WANT to make it apply only to rape doesn't really get you out of that conundrum. If you WANT to make it apply only to rape, then your concept of what the "blob of tissue" really is is still fuzzy. That's why I keep pushing you -- not to force you to "adhere to my way of thinking", but to make you have to think it through and eliminate the fuzzy spots in your reasoning.

Just to satisfy you I will say that the "blob of tissue" is a human being in the eyes of the church. However, speaking as an atheist, since I am no longer an agnostic, I want whats best for my hypothetical 13 year old girl who never wanted, or asked for it, and to force her to have it because of some religious view is dumb.

And, if she was too frightened to say anything earlier, I will let her abort it at any time. I think this is what your trying to get me to say.

However, what I believe right now, is not different from my first reply that I wanted her to have the right to an abortion in the eyes of the law.

Otherwise, its outside the country I would go.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:Just to satisfy you.... I think this is what your trying to get me to say.

What the... ?

This isn't about satisfying me. This isn't about getting you to say a particular thing. You don't have to try to satisfy me; I'm not giving you a grade. All you have to do is satisfy yourself (which, frankly, I don't think you can do as long as you try to make rape an issue -- because no satisfactory view exists in that case.)

I will say that the "blob of tissue" is a human being in the eyes of the church.

Why does that matter? The church has been wrong on a lot of points. Nobody here is saying "we have to do thing X because the church says so", and I certainly don't expect *you* of all people to say it.

You said that "as a human" you'd like the exception to be only for rape. This means you WANT there not to be abortions except in the case of rape. Are you now saying that you only want that in order to satisfy the church? "As a human" you think people shouldn't have abortions except in the case of rape because you want the church to be happy? If it weren't for the church, you'd just say "sure, abortions are OK for everyone, rape or not"? That seems rather silly to me.

I will let her abort it at any time

Morally reprehensible.

Letting someone abort at 8.5 months is disgusting. At that point you're talking about killing this.

You're still trying to draw the distinction between rape victim and not-rape-victim. You simply can't do that in any morally coherent way. Either the fetus is a person and deserves protection (regardless of whether it was formed by rape or not) or it deserves no protection (again, regardless of whether it was formed by rape or not).

You can draw the distinction based on time or development. You can say "at 5 weeks abortions are OK but by 10 weeks they're not" or "before brain activity starts abortion is OK". That's sensible. But to say the fetus should normally be protected unless its father raped its mother is completely outside the bounds of reason.

Lothar wrote:You can draw the distinction based on time or development. You can say "at 5 weeks abortions are OK but by 10 weeks they're not" or "before brain activity starts abortion is OK".

Although the discussion seems to have stalemated at that point, I'd like to add that if we start going by the time of brain wave development, one could argue that since at x-1(where x is the time of brain wave development) days, it will take 1 day to justify it as a person, in which it is likely to survive, one shouldn't kill it. It could then be argued that since at at x-1 weeks, it will take 1 week to justify it as a person, in which it is likely to survive, one shouldn't kill it. One could then extend it to x-n weeks, from brain activity arguing that since there is only a small likelihood that it won't hit x weeks, there is no point killing it for those n weeks, up until the point where x=n. Thus, it can be mathematically justified that one might as well call conception the time of personhood, as odds are the fetus will achieve the arbitrary date of personhood. Q.E.D.

Obviously, I'm pushing the fuzziness in favour of pro-life, but what about the other side. If one argues to push the arbitrary magical line of personhood forward, why stop at any point? They could argue that murder is okay by saying that the time of personhood is at 120, for example, thus anyone killed before then wasn't a person anyway.

Also, with miscarriages/stillbirths, no one had any choice or fault in the matter, and they don't happen very often. To use this to justify abortion is like saying that murder is alright because who knows when the person may die.

I think the limit should be more around 2-3 years, 9 months. They wouldn't live on their own either.

Lothar wrote:Morally reprehensible.

Of course it is, but since my opening reply to this post didn't satisfy you, I decided to try the other extreme to see what you would say. It obviously didn't work for you nor would it work for me.

I have no idea what would satisfy you but honestly speaking, and no fooling around, I treat the undeveloped fetus as less important than that 13 year old rape victim. I'm talking about a little girl, not a women or a developed teen. A young girl who knew nothing about sex, and was attacked. I gave you that scenario and you can call me what evil you wish, but those are my rules and I would help her abort it no matter what. She would be my main concern.

Bettina

The sad thing is i have the strongest feeling that 13 year old would have had WAY less chance of being raped if she did not dress and/or try to act like she was 20.

Behemoth wrote:The sad thing is i have the strongest feeling that 13 year old would have had WAY less chance of being raped if she did not dress and/or try to act like she was 20.

First, she wasn't, in the scenario I presented. Secondly, the last bunch of girls that were killed were not dressed that way, and some were only 9 years old. I know that for a fact.

Bettina

Behemoth wrote:The sad thing is i have the strongest feeling that 13 year old would have had WAY less chance of being raped if she did not dress and/or try to act like she was 20.

Don't blame the victim. Rapist don't rape because they get "turned on", they rape because they like the power kick.

Bet51987 wrote:I treat the undeveloped fetus as less important than that 13 year old rape victim.

AH! I've think we've hit a break through. Now I see where you are coming from. Your position is that some lives are more valuable than others. The fetus' life has value, so it shouldn't be destroyed on a whim. BUT the quality of life of the 13 year old girl who has been raped "trumps" the life of the fetus.

This view is consistant. But beware, it leads in dangerous directions. The logical extension can lead directly to involuntary euthanasia of adults. The life of the young and strong is more valuable than the life of the old and infirm. The life smart people is more valuable than the life of dumb people. The life of certain races/classes is more valuable than the life of other races/classes.

Please don't take offense, I am NOT saying you hold any of those positions. I'm just warning you that, logically, attempting to value some lives above others certainly can and frequently does take people directly to those positions.

Bet51987 wrote:

Lothar wrote:Morally reprehensible.

Of course it is, but since my opening reply to this post didn't satisfy you, I decided to try the other extreme to see what you would say.

I see... so you're not actually trying to say what you think, you're trying to "satisfy me". Kind of pointless, don't you think?

honestly speaking, and no fooling around, I treat the undeveloped fetus as less important than that 13 year old rape victim.

Now that you've finally decided to be honest, your position makes a little sense. It's not that "it's just a blob of tissue deserving no rights", it's that "it might deserve some protection, but not at the expense of ruining someone's life who doesn't deserve their life to be ruined".

But, I have a hard time understanding this: why is the little blob of tissue so important that you're willing to ruin the life of a girl who made the little mistake of having sex? You seem to think it's of no importance relative to the 13-year-old rape victim, so why do you think it's so important that it's worth ruining the life of a 13-year-old who had sex willingly?

@ Lothar & Duper re: mother mortality rates,

I was going off my sister's college (undergrad) thesis, which of course used primary sources. But I'm also aware there are better-known reports on the subject that I haven't read.

I doubt Norma McCorvey is qualified to testify to the validity of such data, but that doesn't matter. Pro-choicers seem to like to inflate the mortality rates as high as possible, and pro-lifers like to minimize them (that's for time periods when abortion is illegal...they reverse their exaggeration claims on mother mortality rates due to abortion in general). However, I doubt any credible source that could say there was or would be a 0.0% change.

Kilarin wrote:The life of the young and strong is more valuable than the life of the old and infirm. The life smart people is more valuable than the life of dumb people. The life of certain races/classes is more valuable than the life of other races/classes.

Ah, but we already live in a world where most of these things are true, implicitly if not explicitly. Just change the definition of "life" from a binary live/die decision to quality of life, including financial status, health care, education, legal treatment, etc. You should also add to your list that the life of US citizens is more valuable than the life of non-citizens (and for that one we might even be able to use the binary definition!).

Kilarin wrote:AH! I've think we've hit a break through. Now I see where you are coming from. Your position is that some lives are more valuable than others. The fetus' life has value, so it shouldn't be destroyed on a whim. BUT the quality of life of the 13 year old girl who has been raped "trumps" the life of the fetus.

This view is consistant. But beware, it leads in dangerous directions. The logical extension can lead directly to involuntary euthanasia of adults. The life of the young and strong is more valuable than the life of the old and infirm. The life smart people is more valuable than the life of dumb people. The life of certain races/classes is more valuable than the life of other races/classes.

Please don't take offense, I am NOT saying you hold any of those positions. I'm just warning you that, logically, attempting to value some lives above others certainly can and frequently does take people directly to those positions.

First, I haven't taken offense because you've always been nice. Second, my only thought on the subject of abortion was the S.D. law which would not allow termination for rape victims. Understand that I am talking about rape of a truly innocent girl. This law, and the people pushing it, is dumb and it should be fought tooth and nail.

I have no experience in the logical extentions your talking about but there are laws in effect (hopefully) to cover those. However, not child murderers, I still want them dead.

Lothar wrote:Now that you've finally decided to be honest, your position makes a little sense. It's not that "it's just a blob of tissue deserving no rights", it's that "it might deserve some protection, but not at the expense of ruining someone's life who doesn't deserve their life to be ruined".

But, I have a hard time understanding this: why is the little blob of tissue so important that you're willing to ruin the life of a girl who made the little mistake of having sex? You seem to think it's of no importance relative to the 13-year-old rape victim, so why do you think it's so important that it's worth ruining the life of a 13-year-old who had sex willingly?

Go back and look at my first two replys to the opening post. Then, look at your first reply to me. I still have a hard time understanding why you didn't get what I was saying even with the clear description of the victim. I stand by what I said about the girl in my scenario that you are still uncomfortable with.

The life in the womb is of importance only if the person carrying it was not a victim. The one who had sex willingly was either too stupid, or made (as you call it) *a little mistake*. She is far different than the girl sleeping with her dolls. I don't have all the answers but you were looking for a line to be drawn somewhere and I drew it the best I could.

One more thing.

I am not dishonest or a liar in the given sense of those words. I never was, I'm not now, nor will I ever be and my morals are as high as ever. Just because I wanted to get your reaction going to the other extreme does not imply dishonesty, nor, in another thread, where you said I should give up lying for lent was another jab I didn't deserve. I've struggled with religion and what I was doing for years but I've changed. I no longer consider what I do on that altar a lie in your sense of the word. To me, I'm an actress just putting on a show, and I'm very good at it.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote: The life in the womb is of importance only if the person carrying it was not a victim.

One more thing.

I am not dishonest or a liar in the given sense of those words. I never was, I'm not now, nor will I ever be and my morals are as high as ever. Just because I wanted to get your reaction going to the other extreme does not imply dishonesty, nor, in another thread, where you said I should give up lying for lent was another jab I didn't deserve. I've struggled with religion and what I was doing for years but I've changed. I no longer consider what I do on that altar a lie in your sense of the word. To me, I'm an actress just putting on a show, and I'm very good at it.


Bettina

This blows me away...

VonVulcan wrote:

Bet51987 wrote: The life in the womb is of importance only if the person carrying it was not a victim.

One more thing.

I am not dishonest or a liar in the given sense of those words. I never was, I'm not now, nor will I ever be and my morals are as high as ever. Just because I wanted to get your reaction going to the other extreme does not imply dishonesty, nor, in another thread, where you said I should give up lying for lent was another jab I didn't deserve. I've struggled with religion and what I was doing for years but I've changed. I no longer consider what I do on that altar a lie in your sense of the word. To me, I'm an actress just putting on a show, and I'm very good at it.


Bettina

This blows me away...

Don't take that too literally. I'm talking about the discussed lump of flesh not yet formed. I put myself in the mind of that 13 year old rape victim and if you were her, you would think differently. I would rather remove that lump of flesh than to cause the destruction of that girls life.

Bettina

The life in the womb is of importance only if the person carrying it was not a victim.

Why is the 'lump of flesh' of any more importance if it is not inside a rape victim? People's lives do not gain or lose their inherent value based on other's actions.

uh.. a \"lump of flesh\" isn't a lump of dough that can be just tossed.

That \"lump\" has complete Human DNA. It will growing into a human. It's not a cancerous lump. It's not a mole, or a lesion. It is a human zygote (at start) and will develope into one of THE most complex biological organisms on this planet. And (hopefully) will reproduce and start the process all over again.

If you take that \"lump\" away, you take away a person. Personally, I was an \"accident\". My folks got married and I thank God that I was born in 64 and not 94. My chances of survival were greatly increased.

Kilarin wrote:I'm just warning you that, logically, attempting to value some lives above others certainly can and frequently does take people directly to those positions.

Like capital punishment

Dedman wrote: Like capital punishment

Different arguement for a different thread, but again it goes back to being responsible for and suffering the consequences of one's actions