Abortion

But neither do you if that's the case.

 

In other words, neither of us can prove if abortion is truly murder or not and that makes this thread pointless.

 

No, that makes this thread an interesting debate.
And whats this talk of pro-abortion?
I doubt anyone in there right mind would support this concept.

 

Yes, all debates can be considered pointless - as long as there are the zealots on either side who refuse to budge on their opinion. The idea is the free flow of information, and letting those who allow themselves, to see the full social picture of the opinions and derived facts either side has to present. Allowing one to form an opinion himself.

Sorry I've been out of this thread for a while, tons of coursework to be getting on with but I should be back in over the weekend

 

There are some people, i'm sure.

 

Coursework? College...?

Yes, I agree that pro-life, etc. are opinions. However, I feel that it is necessary to distinguish and understand the difference between objective and subjective truth/reality. In the first it is perhaps easiest to illustrate with music and the passage of time. An illustration: to one person, a piece of music seems to take forever--about 90 minutes. The person sitting next to them listening to the same piece thinks the piece was pretty short--about 50 minutes. Both are correct; it is their perception of time in terms of music that makes them feel as though the music is faster or slower than another person/than time. Many musicians can create this effect by changing the tempo or style (staccato, legato, etc.) among many other things, of a piece. In actual clock time, this piece lasts about 70 minutes. So, while both can be correct in their own perceptions (because music is experienced by each person on a highly individualized level), they are not correct in the actual time.

Maybe that's not the greatest example...

Anyway, the point is, perceptions differ (and can still be correct), while fact—objective truth, does not. Take math. 2+2=4. There aren’t any exceptions. It’s objective. In the subjective view, 2+2 could equal 8, or 435, or 1,246. Whatever you desire it to be. But that doesn’t make it true.

The same case scenario can be applied to abortion. Some people think that it’s ok. Some people adamantly oppose it. Some people say it’s ok in certain circumstances. Science cannot tell us the answers we seek in regard to abortion. It cannot tell us, “yes, this is right” or “no, this is wrong.” It can only present evidence…

We limit ourselves extensively when we only use science to debate things…I mean, considering as how it’s only one piece out of at least eight that comprise our worldview, it seems lacking…plus, considering the fact that it cannot provide any sort of moral direction—yet we attempt to use it to justify or argue with its use exclusively...It is clearly limiting.

This is why I brought up morality earlier, because science is only going to be able to go so far.

Which brings me to ask again, because the questions that I asked were not fully answered (and no, they weren’t rhetorical, I actually wanted answers ^_^) —why do you think that abortion is bad? Or good? I wrote about this in the post that’s now on page 95…

(I will eventually address the human thing when I get around to it…)

 

The reason I think abortion is bad is because of a few reasons.

1. It has human DNA and should be considered human.

2. I believe anything that has the possibility of developing into a full baby is human.

3. I believe a that a baby has a soul from the moment of conception.

4. God says murder is bad, I consider abortion murder and such I cannot stop fighting against or I'm betraying God.

5. I believe that a fetus is not part of the woman but is it's own person as it has it's own DNA.

6. Pro-choice people seem to say that the fetus does'nt matter and it seems heartless and cruel that they see it that way.

7. Why get an abortion when you can put it up for adoption or just transfere the embryo to another woman? (Someone answer this question, please.)

 

Final year of secondary school actually, I'm just too lazy to get it out of the way as it gets set

Anyhow, whilst I accept what you are saying about subjective morality and reality, I feel you are taking it to a bit of an extreme.I am of the opinion that moral relativity is essentially what we as a species operate on. Our psychological similarities allow us to grow to mutually accept a certain measure of "Right" or "Wrong". Because we are all essentially equal however we in theory have no right to apply this to one another -Although we inevitably do (brought about by our mental divergances, and the contreversial subject matter). This is where of course God comes in as a higher being, who may dictate to us what is "actually" just or unjust. Again, this is where the problems begin again, as assuming God does indeed exist for a moment (and presupposing he is male, for ease of reference) his words are open to interpretation. We unfortunately then the majority of the time either interpret it in a way which supports our beleifs or ignore it.

As I agreed earlier, Science is only able to go so far. However cosider it if you will, for some, an alternative to religion on a moral front. For instance while God may outright condemn murder as "Evil", for others, a consice and educated (and scientific) breakdown of the facts may indeed make them feel a murder was justified, or "For the greater good" (I hope not to stray too far back into the realms of subjective morality on this one). Unfortunately those who seriously follow religion often seem either blind to this concept, or unnervingly welcoming. God is from time to time vengeful, and indeed commits the act of murder, and that is seen as "righteous". Indeed the majority of people often back the "righteous" murder of people by man himself, for instance the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, the CIA's legendary multiple attempts on Fidel Castro's life, etc.

Personally, I'm indifferent on abortion. I feel it is a moral grey area (largely due to the fact that we will never be presented with all the facts) and in all actuality will remain as such. Indeed, I find myself leaning towards pro-choice, but as always in any situation I feel it is more than the immediate actions that need to be considered and judged. Cause and effect is often a funny thing and therefore I never really like to judge indefinatly one way or another, I'm always open to opinion. I do not wish to debase my points atall, but for those of you who don't quite grasp my point of view, I feel the movie "Crash" really helps sum up my feelings. Rarely if ever in life are we ever going to be presented with the full facts. What you may judge as an "Evil" or "Wrong" action when viewed in a wider context may be in fact an action would could be judged as extremley good or "right". Nobody is inherently good or evil, or rather we are both. We may be the villain of the piece one minute and later the kind saint, or vica versa.

Anywhoo, having just got back from the nights festivities, i'm in no state to be properly debating, so I look forward to continuing tomorrow.

 

I'm not saying all types of murder are bad. I think Bin Laden should die, he's dangerous. I think Casey Athony should die, she murdered he daughter like a savage monster. But abortion is murder of an Inocent baby that has done absoulutly nothing wrong. This is why pro-choice people make me angry, because they don't consider an unborn baby to be human and therefore they say it's not murder. To me, it seems pro-choice people are people who find no wrong in abortion and that makes me sick and I will get mad about it.

 

To Twilight:

Ok, so basically you are in the same boat as I am. As a Christian, I also disagree with abortion for the same reasons that you do. But I say—why get an abortion when you could have the child? Many people take things for granted. Women are blessed to be able to have a child at all…of course, I suppose that a statement like that is reminiscent of “you don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone.” Or, the best option: abstinence!! I am a huge fan of abstinence. Of course, in the case of rape, my sentiments are different (albeit slightly), because it obviously isn’t a choice. I still think that abortion should not be done. I wonder what would happen if people prayed about things. Makes me wonder.

Anyway, I think that one of the reasons why people go for abortion is because they don’t value human life. Or they don’t understand the value of human life. Most likely both. Plus, is not abortion the easy way out? Little consequence for wantonness, or so some think. However, there are emotional scars (as there should be, I mean, it is murder). As you can see, I am very passionate about this subject…but most of the time I do not reflect this because I feel it is better to debate in a cooler, rather than more heated, fashion.

To BB:

Nice. Senior status. I’m a college freshman.

Hrm. Interesting that you agree with moral relativity. There is no other creature in nature that has morality in the sense that we do, for one thing—meaning that if it really is psychological, why don’t other intelligent creatures, such as dolphins or primates, for example, have it? (I feel that moral relativism has strong ties with the general evolutionist take on morality.) Where do you think that morality comes from? Society—common acceptance of right and wrong? [Let’s look at Hitler and the Holocaust. If you agree with moral relativism, you can’t say that what he did was wrong, because there is no objective standard with which to measure that by. And yes, I did note that you stated that we have no right to judge one another, and that we inevitably do…] Just as a side note—where do you get the information that we are all essentially equal?

Basically what I’m trying to say is that if there is no objective truth, how do we even know that right and wrong exist in the first place? We tend to want to say things like “that’s not fair, or just.” Well, what is just? Who’s to say that there even is a just—that justice exists?

Let’s consider murder. Everyone generally considers this to be a bad thing. But who is to say that murder is indeed bad? That is assuming that humans shouldn’t be murdered. Why? Because human life is valuable? Is it, though? And can we, as a society, determine this? Annoying to ask so many questions, I know, but necessary to get to the heart of the matter. And yes, I have considered morality from a non-religious standpoint, as I was once an Atheist. It has no base. But even then, I had an inner feeling—something called conscience—when I did things that were “bad,” even if I didn’t know that they were bad. This did not come from societal values; I’ve always been an oddball…but the point is, it is more than just recognizing that something is bad. For many, the conscience nags, persisting until what was wrong is righted. And when what went wrong is righted, relief is found. How do you explain this?

God is justified in all that He does. Man is presumptuous to assume that he knows better than his Creator. It’s almost laughable. Nope. It is laughable, changed my mind. We are beyond microscopic in comparison to the rest of the universe, yet insist that we know right and wrong of ourselves. Did we not need to eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil to know what was right and what was wrong? Of course, that is a biblical argument. Still, it’s worth referencing to understand God’s nature. He is good. Good as in God defines what good is, not good defines who God is. God is love. Same concept as before. Every thing that is wholesome—love, kindness, gentleness, peace, longsuffering—resonates from Him. So…if God decides to strike a person for disobedience, He is justified. Understanding who God is really is essential to understanding everything else.

Your point of view is certainly of value to me and interests me greatly. I agree that context has much to offer in terms of judgment. Other pieces I disagree with, such as the part about good and evil. Rebellion against God is evil, and we rebel against Him all the time because we are fallen. I think that we have the capacity to do good things, as well as very evil things, but we do have a sin nature…yet because we are made in the image of God, we can still create wonderful music, paintings, etc.

 

Abortion is wrong, period.

 

I don't think it's as black and white as God condemning murder. Since He knows everything, he knows if the murder was justified. But then again, something in my statement doesn't sound right to me.

That's one of the reasons why I think abortion shouldn't be allowed. People shouldn't be allowed to back down from the challenge of a child just because they're too scared or something.

Sorry if there was something else in your guy's posts that I could have mentioned. These two things were all I could think of at the moment.

 

Quick reply to desert:

That's not what I'm getting at, he has within the bible condemned Murder as wrong and evil. The 10 Commandments for example. Therefore people interpret it in different ways.

I'll tackle your sizeable contribution tomorrorow Waterfall

 

Ok. I'll be waiting

 

how do you not see the most simple equation in this debate?
ABORTION=SIN
Oh, but you think that the mother can do whatever she wants, as long as someone says its okay.
MORALS PEOPLE!!

 

But only those who believe in God believe in Sin. Those who believe in God have a different level of morals than those who don't.

 

The more morals you have the better, it means your a more righteous person as you are less likely to do wrong. Everyone should have tons of morals to keep them on the right track.

People who have lots of morals are less likely to have sex before marriage and usualy just have babies after we have married, because we're not dumb enough to go out and have sex with every stranger we see. It should be common sense that sex before marriage is wrong.

 

Sex before marriage isn't wrong, sex is natural and there is no reason to believe that sex before marriage is wrong, I honestly can't understand how you came up with this hypothesis.

Everyone has different morals, I agree the more morals the better but if we all had extremely high morals life would be very very boring.

 

its statements like that that make things like sex before mariage seem "okay". Its not. Yes its natural, but natural things can occure with the one you love, cant they? Its statements like "oh, its only natural" that cause things like abortions and teen pregnancies and corruption through something that is meant as a "gift". You need to face the fact that ITS NOT OKAY TO HAVE SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE.

By the way, this is coming from someone who has had sex before marriage. Its fun and all, but if you dont wait for it after marriage, it comes with a ton of stress and drama. So my overall point is, sex is worth the wait.

 

But who is to say you can't have sex with the one you love before marriage, some people don't want to get married to to experiences around them, are you also saying its not okay then?

Sex is natural, it happens due to hormones etc, not necessarily love. It is meant to be a gift in many religions as an outcome of love but the fact is, it really isn't that.