|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
posted May 17, 2013 09:39 AM |
|
|
|
Since when only the religious people are to decide what is good or bad?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 10:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Either the religious people are right about abortion and it's murder or they're wrong and it isn't. If they're right (as they believe themselves to be), it makes no sense for them to stand by and let such horrible atrocities happen without saying anything. It so happens that they're wrong, and abortion isn't murder, but on the whole their attitude of "stop bad things" is a good one, and is the attitude you'd want people to have if something actually bad was happening. For something that's actually bad - for example, the War on Drugs - you wouldn't want people to say, "Oh, you're against the government raiding people and taking away the children of marijuana legalization activists? Mind your own business."
That's not the question, right? EVERYONE has the right to express AN OPINION, but the question is how relevant that opinion is. I don't mind Elodin - or anyone else for that matter - to have the OPINION that it is wrong to abort.
What I mind is his missionary zeal to prove to everyone that he, male that he is, of all people has the moral and scientific authority to tell all the females in the world what is morally right to do with a fetus and what is wrong and murder.
That's preposterous, and it doesn't get any better, when those zealots band together to build more pressure.
The complete dependency of the fetus defines a special relationship that cannot be judged by the rules that have been determined for independently acting persons. It's a special case, that has a very personal or INDIVIDUAL aspect. I simply don't think that "the public" has any obligation - moral or otherwise - to care about the well-being of, let's call it a human spark of life, when the only real tool to their disposition is brute force against the pregnant woman. There simply is no positive way to take care of a fetus - that's something only the pregnant can do, and CONSEQUENTLY it's no one else's business except the pregnant's.
Which means, there shouldn't even BE a law other than forbidding abortion (if so desired), once the public is able to make it their business, which would be week 25 at this point.
Obviously, the general situation of the society plays a role. Let's assume, in our society child-bearing would be a very difficult process in every respect - this would DOUBTLESSLY make "the spark of life" a lot more ... precious, and I can QUITE well imagine how such a society would call an abortion an atrocity, but I can also imagine that, since it was quite difficult to become pregnant in the first place there wouldn't be many unwished-for pregnancies anyway, and in case there was one, society would probably reward females for becoming pregnant, so that question would probably not even ask itself.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 10:55 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 11:02, 17 May 2013.
|
Of course I've been keeping God out of the discussion and arguing from the point of view of science. But die-hard leftist anti-theists can't leave their hatred for religion and for theists out of the picture and must continually vent that hatred in every topic in every thread.
I certainly could have legitimately spoken about the love of Christ and principles he taught and how the murder of our young is anathema to everything he stands for. Religious/philosophical/moral/ethical approaches to topics such as abortion are certainly appropriate.
But I've focused my arguments on science.
I do not believe a person should have his opinion silenced on an issue because he is black, white, yellow, or green. Male or female. Young or old. Atheist or theist.
The free flow of ideas helps the discovery and spread of truth.
I think people who try to shut down the flow of ideas that they don't share have not completely thought through the issues and fear the arguments of "the other side." Some people are afraid that the current in the river of ideas will knock them off their feet and sweep them away. That they'll lose their identity.
Me, I'll take a swim in the river of ideas anytime. The current is nothing to fear. Sometimes I swim against the current, sometimes with the current, and sometimes across the current.
Others fear the river of ideas and want to shut the flow down to a trickle that they control and to control who has access to that flow. But such a trickle would not be enough to quench my thirst, wash me clean or to give me a good work out. And why should only "me and mine" get to enjoy the river?
Abortion is a matter of import to the human family. It affects us all. Women and men. Mother and father. Children. Women are not the only ones who should have a voice in the debate on whether or not it is appropriate for a woman to kill young humans. It took a man to make the child too and a child is being aborted.
Reagan said,"If there is a question as to whether there is life or death, the doubt should be resolved in favor of life." I think this the correct attitude.
The fetus is the product of a sperm and egg from humans. The DNA of the fetus is complete and unique human DNA. Each fetus is a unique young human organism. I don't think it is appropriate for us to kill our young. It is not moral.
Here's another truism from Reagan: "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." Some of those people who are for abortion tell every man (but themselves) to "shut up" because they can't become pregnant. To that I could counter, "Shut up until you've been aborted."
____________
Revelation
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 11:10 AM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 11:19, 17 May 2013.
|
Quote:
That's not an explanation.
Yes, and hungry children in Africa shouldn't be here.
You sound like some Miss of the World asked about what she thinks about world's problems. Sorry, but no - abortion shouldn't be done nor adoption. They aren't good at all. They are just more or less necessary and we are not right persons to decide which is "better".
Quote:
Of course abortion is a solution (and a choice).
It's only a choice. There are no solutions in case of something that shouldn't happen. All "solutions" of this problem (unwanted children) result in mother's tragedy, so for me they can't be classified as solutions.
Quote:
That doesn't mean that the moral principles involved are unique
But they are. Murdering your own fetus - and that's how many people think what abortion is - is quite unique from the moral perspective. Comparing it to murdering adults would be wrong as I stated earlier in my posts. If we compare it to murdering animals - Elodin would be mad (and he would be right about that actually). If we compare it to anything else... it would be probably stupid.
So yes, an abortion is quite unique thing even in moral way.
Quote:
To that I could counter, "Shut up until you've been aborted."
Of course you could. But since you're stubborn to your own arguments and ignore others, there would be no progression from that statement.
For me it looks like this: abortionists discuss, while you happen to repeat all things about human DNA as if you have nothing else to say. What you don't remember is that we already answered that "problem". Maaaaany times.
Maybe that's where the problem lies - your ideology is mostly about being traditional while the whole world progresses. So you'll definitely be called an extremist and not taken seriously no matter how right and serious your words are for you.
Think about it. Maybe you should try to use your opponent's language to win the disussion? 
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 11:35 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 11:36, 17 May 2013.
|
Quote:
"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
So what? I wasn't going to be born if my parents had fallen in love with someone else instead of each other, should we put that in the law too? What kind of a ****** up logic is that.
Quote:
Me, I'll take a swim in the river of ideas anytime. The current is nothing to fear. Sometimes I swim against the current, sometimes with the current, and sometimes across the current.
Really? You know there is a very common type of American conservative, he is such a cliche, everyone around the world knows exactly what he's going to say on every standard issue. How come all of "your opinions" fit like a glove to that typology 100 percent all of the time, no matter what the subject is. Abortion, religion, nationalism, guns, foreign politics, marriage, death penalty... You are never an inch away from what everyone is expecting you to say and you never ever change your mind about anything either, even slightly. Hardly looks like the free thinker you claim to be, thinkers change their mind, they are flexible, they take that as a good thing, not a weakness. What makes you think you are such an independent brain when all the stuff you say is chewed up and used up propaganda of the conservatives ALL the time?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 11:47 AM |
|
|
When talking about abortion, abortion advocates like to throw around figure of tens of thousands of women dying from backalley abortions before abortion became legal. It turns out those figures were made up by abortionists and have been accepted propaganda on their side of the debate.
Womens Health
Quote:
Next, we have the argument that abortion is necessary to promote women’s health. If abortion is not available on request, they say, women would rather risk harm themselves than allow their child to live. In support of this theory, they point to the “bad old days of back-alley abortion,” when tens of thousands of women died annually. This argument is powerful because it appeals to the same value that the pro-life movement does: a desire to save human lives. The problem is that the women’s health argument has no basis in fact.
In the late 1960s, Dr. Bernard Nathanson co-founded the National Association for Repeal of Abortion Law, which now goes by the name NARAL Pro-Choice America. Nathanson was an abortionist. An atheist, he became pro-life when improved ultrasound technology convinced him of the humanity of the unborn child. (He converted to Catholicism in his old age, and died in 2011.) During his years as a pro-life atheist, he shared his insights into the early abortion movement—in particular, the messaging it used to shape the abortion debate. One key tactic was to conjure abortion statistics out of thin air. In Aborting America, Nathanson wrote:
It was always “5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.” I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the “morality” of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?
So what are the actual numbers? According to the National Center for Health Statistics, 39 women died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade. Maternal deaths from abortion haven’t been in the thousands since the 1930s, before the advent of antibiotics! For perspective, the CDC reports that 12 women died in legal abortions in 2009; that number is almost certainly low, because many states (notably California) do not report to the CDC.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 11:55 AM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 12:08, 17 May 2013.
|
Haven't you thought that maybe propaganda is on both sides?
Also - do you really consider any moral values when you're saying that death of thousands of people is bad, but death of tens of people (yet, according to the article itself, they are lowered numbers) isn't bad at all? For me such argument has no meaning, it's comparing death numbers to prove your point, and that's definitely more immoral than abortion.
Also I can say that, with abortion legalised, doctors aren't afraid of helping pregnant mothers because they can't be sentenced of trying to do an abortion in case of miscarriage. But does it really mean anything?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 12:28 PM |
|
|
Hobbit:
Quote:
Sorry, but no - abortion shouldn't be done nor adoption.
Then you're using a quite different meaning of "should" than I am. If I understand correctly, by "this is what should be done" you mean "in an ideal world, this is what would be done". I mean, "in the current world, this is what a person ought to do". Yes, there "should" be no abortions or adoptions, in the sense that in an ideal world, there would be no abortions or adoptions because there would be no (potential) unwanted children. But in the current world, in which (potential) unwanted children exist, if someone has such a child/fetus, then the right thing to do - the thing they should do - is put it up for adoption or abort it.
Abortion is a solution to the problem of having an unwanted child. Sometimes abortions have negative medical effects, occasionally women regret their abortions, or are temporarily traumatized by them - and yet many women who have had abortions say that they're glad they had them. Define the problem, and you can determine whether something is a solution. What is the problem in this case? An unwanted future child. Does abortion result in a state of the world in which you don't have that child in the future? Yes. Then it is a solution. To determine whether it is an acceptable solution requires looking at the other consequences of abortion. If the fetus has rights, then killing it would be murder, so even though abortion would still be a solution, it would be an unacceptable one. Abortion can cause the would-be mother to feel sad. If that feeling outweighs the positive effects of not having to carry a child, give birth to it, and give it up for adoption (which has its own costs), then likewise abortion is an unacceptable solution. Doesn't change the fact that it is a solution, though.
Quote:
Murdering your own fetus - and that's how many people think what abortion is - is quite unique from the moral perspective.
Why? Also, note that even if the situation is unique, that does not mean that the principles are unique. (Otherwise, you might say that because everybody is unique and every situation is unique, then everything is unique from a moral perspective and there's no applying principles to anything.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 12:37 PM |
|
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 12:44 PM |
|
|
I reread your post. It doesn't explain why the moral principles involved with abortion are different/unique.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 12:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Comparing it to murdering adults would be wrong as I stated earlier in my posts. If we compare it to murdering animals - Elodin would be mad (and he would be right about that actually). If we compare it to anything else... it would be probably stupid.
I can say nothing else.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 12:50 PM |
|
|
That's not an explanation, and having looked at your posts in the past few pages, there's no explanation there either.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 12:54 PM |
|
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 01:10 PM |
|
|
No, I'm giving you an opportunity to provide one - one that addresses the specific issue I've raised.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 01:27 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:29, 17 May 2013.
|
|
Mvassilev, about what is bad or lawfully wrong, look at page one of this thread, there is a post by Khaelo, it is the third one, it's quite a lucid summary. Since my answer to his issue 1 is "when we have a functional brain" issue 2 is not even on the table to me (and as of now, neither on the table in the eyes of the law) unless there is a medical threat to mother's condition. On that situation, I agree with the poster (Khaelo)too. Things are really simple without the "monstrous baby murderers" non-sense actually.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 01:39 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 13:41, 17 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Me, I'll take a swim in the river of ideas anytime. The current is nothing to fear. Sometimes I swim against the current, sometimes with the current, and sometimes across the current.
.......
You never ever change your mind about anything either, even slightly. Hardly looks like the free thinker you claim to be, thinkers change their mind, they are flexible, they take that as a good thing, not a weakness. What makes you think you are such an independent brain when all the stuff you say is chewed up and used up propaganda of the conservatives ALL the time?
So quick to leap, grasshopper. I've changed many of my viewpoints through the years.
"Free Thinker" does not mean that you are wishy washy and change your opinions as often as you change your underwear.
A free thinker is contemplative. To be a free thinker I must come to know myself. What do I believe? Why do I believe it? I hold my belief up to the world and see if there are holes in it. And I live my beliefs.
I don't "build a fort" around my ideas. I discard or alter them with new information. Also, I actively seek out truth. Facts are my friends, not my enemy. Only the truth can "set me free," and only "truth" that I internalize.
I don't accept something as "dogma" because "that's what conservatives believe," or "that's what Apostolic Pentecostals believe," or "because that's what Americans believe." "Authorities" are not the anchors of my viewpoints.
But I'm also not a "rebel without a clue." I don't avoid influence from others OR from traditional sources of authority. I seek the council of others. I consider their opinions and viewpoints. I take counsel with my pastor, I read the ancient texts such as the Bible. But I make my own decisions and reach my own conclusions.
Observation and experience obviously plays a large part in what I believe to be true. My observations and experiences are not limited to the "material" side of my existence. I am a spiritual being as all humans are, whether or not they even know it. I pray. I meditate. I worship. I fellowship. I serve.
I obviously have a world view. That world view has been built through free thinking throughout the years of my life. But I am aware that I see life through a lens as do we all and I do my best to maintain my focus and see as truly as possible.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 01:56 PM |
|
|
|
Self-conviction is a powerful force indeed. Unfortunately, it can't do **** in a discussion with other people. Dig that and you may start digging other "truths" as well. For example that nobody cares what you think about yourself when your words/actions say exactly the opposite.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 01:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"Free Thinker" does not mean that you are wishy washy and change your opinions as often as you change your underwear.
I know, it's hard to change my mind too if I'm convinced on something (but I take my time before getting truly convinced). I'm not talking about wishy washy, you give the impression that whatever subject you bring on the table, your mind is already 100 percent made up and as far as I've seen, it's always identical to what the conservatives say on the subject. One might of course agree with a political group (though in practice that happening all the time seems unlikely to me) but if so, why do you present yourself as a free thinker as if you have some alternative/original idea on these matters?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 02:54 PM |
|
|
I think, there can be no arguing against the fact that up to the point when a fetus can be removed from the womb and kept alive somewhere else, a fetus is something "society" has nothing to do with; it's solely and exclusively within the responsibility of the INDIVIDUAL pregnant.
If that is so, why would society make laws about how to deal with them? Basically, if you prohibit an abortion as a means of "getting rid" of a fetus, than you obviously have to forbid not only an abortion, but also everything that MAY lead to a miscarriage or to a "damage" of a fetus. That in turn would mean, as often stated, that every such case would have to be investigated.
Here is another angle: I think, there can be no discussion, that in case of a rape the possibility of an abortion MUST exist, otherwise the society is not fair to women and invites men to rape their wifes should they don't want (more) children.
But if abortion was allowed only in that case - a woman could always get an abortion by claiming a rape, so a law against abortion wouldn't make sense with such a rule which seems to be a basic right.
All of this points to the same thing: that it makes no sense to forbid abortions. A society can only try to adopt policies that will keep the number of unwanted pregnancies as low as possible to avoid abortions.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 08:07 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:09, 17 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Quote:
"Free Thinker" does not mean that you are wishy washy and change your opinions as often as you change your underwear.
I know, it's hard to change my mind too if I'm convinced on something (but I take my time before getting truly convinced). I'm not talking about wishy washy, you give the impression that whatever subject you bring on the table, your mind is already 100 percent made up and as far as I've seen, it's always identical to what the conservatives say on the subject. One might of course agree with a political group (though in practice that happening all the time seems unlikely to me) but if so, why do you present yourself as a free thinker as if you have some alternative/original idea on these matters?
Hah!!!!!!! Certain people are running in a little anti-theist extreme left pack and howl the pack song continuously, stopping only to bark at anyone who does not smell like the pack. And they speak of originality? That's sweet!!
I think quite often I've seen comments about Elodin vs the world in threads so I think my positions must deffer somewhat from cookie cutter mold opinions.
I've probably taken as many years as you've been alive to formulate my opinions. But if you present rational, persuasive arguments and show me that I am wrong I'll certainly alter my opinion.
Anyways, I don't share all the viewpoints of my fellow conservatives, of my denominations or my countrymen. But this thread is not entitled "Elodin's beliefs." Perhaps you should check the thread title and get back on topic?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
