The abortion issue

[jgh7]

This is my first time adding a poll, so hopefully it works

I notice that the issue of gay marriage is a hot topic on these forums, but people tend to skirt around abortion... Gee, I wonder why? Here's a poll, please choose one of the options even if you feel that you're "special" to the point of where none of these options describes you. Please keep in mind, This has to do only with pregnancies that are not the result of rape, are not a danger to the mother's life, and with fetuses that will not have grossly severe deformities or disabilities. I have opinions about each of these special circumstances, but I would like this topic to be about the overwhelming majority of pregnancies which don't have these problems.

Obviously you can voice your stance as well, and feel free to talk about your opinions of how religion relates to all of this... or how it shouldn't. Here's mine:

For me, my strong views about abortion coincide highly with my religious views, but I developed them before I became religious. I view life as sacred from the moment of conception. I don't care if the zef (zygote/embryo/fetus) can think, I don't care how he looks, I don't care if the mother-to-be is a teenager or not, and I don't care about the impact on society. All I care about is the zef's life, and how I define life is not based off of cognitive abilities, development of vital organs, or ability to survive outside the womb. Life is about having a future on this earth. Many people say it's no big deal because there are so many early miscarriages that we don't even realize happen, but that is an awful reason to justify the purposeful destruction of life.

The main pro-choice argument is that the mother has a right to choose since it's her body. I strongly disagree. In the cases of voluntary sex, people know the risks; even when they use protection they know there's still a risk. Even if they don't know the risks, that still does not justify killing the zef because of their ignorance. Even in the worst case scenario, where the mother is a teenager and dirt poor, I strongly believe that abortion is wrong. Life is sacred to the point of where both parents ought to be willing to sacrifice their monetary well-being as well as their personal lives/time/aspirations for the sake of letting their child live.

My faith strengthens my stance, and I'm not ashamed to admit that the only way I could feel so strongly is through my faith. After all, with a non-theistic view it's pretty easy to view life as insignificant if it's a tiny spec that doesn't think and doesn't look anything like a baby. I understand many will be offended by this, but I've seen that this is the case for many non-theists.

The final argument that usually arises is: "Isn't using protection the same as abortion, since you're preventing sperm from entering the egg?" I believe we have the right to choose when we want to create life, but we don't have the right to choose to destroy that life once it has been created. I may not know the precise time down to the second, but somewhere during the moment of conception, life is created. A sperm will not grow into a baby, and neither will an egg; only a fertilized egg. All that is left after conception is less than a year of growing until the life is born. Using protection is no more abortion than is choosing not to have sex for a certain night. Both cases mean that sperm that could have fertilized an egg was prevented from doing so. But destroying a fertilized egg is abortion, because it is killing off a human life that is growing.

These are my views. I know there are many points where people can disagree, but abortion is one thing where I have a very strong stance on, since I believe it is killing. When people are lax on their stances and say things like, "It's only for mothers to decide," it usually means that they don't view the zef as a life.

[East of Eden]

I love how when that is brought up, and people claim 'it's only a parable'... or 'out of context'... yet won't discuss what that statement is talking about, or talk about what it means.

I just did discuss it's meaning, what are you talking about?

Ever hear of the auto de fe?

Yes, that was in spite of Christ's teachings, not because of them. Jesus harmed no one.

[JoeyKnothead]

Yes, that was in spite of Christ's teachings, not because of them. Jesus harmed no one.

Wish we could say the same for his adherents.

[East of Eden]

Yes, that was in spite of Christ's teachings, not because of them. Jesus harmed no one.

Wish we could say the same for his adherents.

Who is harming you?

[Goat]

I love how when that is brought up, and people claim 'it's only a parable'... or 'out of context'... yet won't discuss what that statement is talking about, or talk about what it means.

I just did discuss it's meaning, what are you talking about?

Ever hear of the auto de fe?

Yes, that was in spite of Christ's teachings, not because of them. Jesus harmed no one.

Where did you discuss the actual meaning? You said 'out of context', yet did not discuss what it meant. I see a dismissil, then 'what do you mean, I talked about it'.

[East of Eden]

I love how when that is brought up, and people claim 'it's only a parable'... or 'out of context'... yet won't discuss what that statement is talking about, or talk about what it means.

I just did discuss it's meaning, what are you talking about?

Ever hear of the auto de fe?

Yes, that was in spite of Christ's teachings, not because of them. Jesus harmed no one.

Where did you discuss the actual meaning? You said 'out of context', yet did not discuss what it meant. I see a dismissil, then 'what do you mean, I talked about it'.

See my previous post. It is either a reference to the final judgement or a prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem. It is not a command to kill those who don't believe in Christianity, a la Islam.

Where is your evidence Hitler used this out of context verse as justification for his actions, and if he did use this verse why did he kill 3,000,000 Catholics in the death camps?

[JoeyKnothead]

Yes, that was in spite of Christ's teachings, not because of them. Jesus harmed no one.

Wish we could say the same for his adherents.

Who is harming you?

I have a history, lacking evidence for such I can't offer it.

I will instead point to the likes of Eric Rudolph, et. al. Or those in my area who continue to restrict my rights to alcohol on their sacred day. Harm doesn't always have to be physical.

[East of Eden]

I will instead point to the likes of Eric Rudolph, et. al.

He's harming you? You really think Eric 'et all' is a bigger threat than the Islamofascists?

Or those in my area who continue to restrict my rights to alcohol on their sacred day.

If the majority of people in your area don't want Sunday alcohol sales for whatever reason, tough. That's democracy.

Harm doesn't always have to be physical.

You're moving the goalposts. When I said Jesus harmed no one, I meant physically, a la 'the prophet' and his followers.

[Goat]

I will instead point to the likes of Eric Rudolph, et. al.

He's harming you? You really think Eric 'et all' is a bigger threat than the Islamofascists?

Or those in my area who continue to restrict my rights to alcohol on their sacred day.

If the majority of people in your area don't want Sunday alcohol sales for whatever reason, tough. That's democracy.

Harm doesn't always have to be physical.

You're moving the goalposts. When I said Jesus harmed no one, I meant physically, a la 'the prophet' and his followers.

I have to disagree. "His followers' certainly have. Why, someone has given personal testimony that they have been physically abused because some southern guys found out he was a non-believer

[East of Eden]

Why, someone has given personal testimony that they have been physically abused because some southern guys found out he was a non-believer

Hearsay, not evidence at all. Probably this 'person', if he existed at all, merely believed he had been abused.

[Goat]

Why, someone has given personal testimony that they have been physically abused because some southern guys found out he was a non-believer

Hearsay, not evidence at all. Probably this 'person', if he existed at all, merely believed he had been abused.

It is HIS personal testimony.. unless you want to call him a liar.