Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[Gaunt]

If we are both right, why is it that you are advocating your religion be legislated in favor of all others? Krishna says beef eating is bad! Ban it

It was sarcasm. I was arguing from the side of moral relativism which he advocates.

And yet the question remains on why your religion should be legislated instead of the Hindu's. You obviously do not believe they are both right, as even in your sarcastic representation of moral relativism shows a bias for one view over another.

[Jose]

I don't know if you're referring to me or Jose here, but I don't think I've ever stated that on this forum.

I was not referring to you. I was referring tot he debate Jose and I had about the origin of morality or something like that.

Yep, he was referring to me. This is a good place, perhaps, to put in a plug for expanding the quote tag to say quote="Jose" or quote="Gaunt" (with the equals sign and the quotation marks) so that we can keep things straight. It's an interesting discussion to which TWQcS refers, concerning the evolutionary origin of moral behavior.

If we are both right, why is it that you are advocating your religion be legislated in favor of all others? Krishna says beef eating is bad! Ban it!

It was sarcasm. I was arguing from the side of moral relatvism which he advocates.

Rats! Good sarcasm causing confusion instead of amusement. Well, the quote tags will fix it in the future.

Now, I feel I must protest that you accuse me of advocating "moral relativism," using a term that has been painted as evil by the Moral Ones. I've never claimed to advocate "moral relativism." In my view, morality is morality. It is just as absolute as in your view.

Unfortunately, there are times when it is impossible to solve a dilemma that involves two moral issues, and every decision requires choosing one moral issue over the other. Take, for instance--let's see here...I'll choose something completely at random--the idea of abortion. The Christians would say that we should do unto others as we would have others do unto us. They would say that we should treat others with respect, and not make demands on their bodies, or demand that they do what we say regardless of their own interests or their own health. They would also say that abortion is wrong. How do they reconcile these opposing moral views? By moral relativism, of course! They say that anti-abortionism is more moral than supporting a woman's right to control her own person, though they would support that right on moral grounds under other circumstances (say, for instance, enforced sexual servitude).

Moral relativism is on the loose! Everybody run!

[Daystar]

How wrong you are. We are a nation founded on Christian principles.

Aha! That explains all of the scriptural references in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights!

[Day] Who ever said that these documents were supposed to have Jesus written all over them to make this a Christian nation. When you read the writings of the founders and many other official documents, you quickly see that America was founded by godly men and women.

That the authors and signators of these documents may have held certain religious beliefs, does not make their works a product of those beliefs. The mere fact that these documents were created suggests that scriptural adherence alone is not enough to build a nation.

[Day] One of Franklin's great quotes at the Constitutional Convention was, "Unless the Lord builds the house, its workers labor in vain." He quoted Ps. 127:1. Clearly, he and many others believed the hand of Providence guided the founding of America. "God shed his grace on thee."

The courts have changed America into a secular society.

Which seems to be curiously consistent with the First Amendment principle of no religious bias, dontcha think?

[Day] All the first amendment does is prevent the government from establishing a national relgious denomination. The amendment actually encourages the proliferation of Christian denominations through the free speech and exercies clause. But liberal judges over the years have extened it to protect pornography.

Only the courts can legislate.

No, legislation, comes from the legislative branch of government. The courts are the judicial branch, whose responsibility is to administer justice when allegations of violation of public law are claimed.

[Day] Yes, that's what I ment to say.

As well, the courts help to protect the general population from the pesky legislation that might occur when a sufficient majority of legislators share a similar limited worldview and feast upon the opportunity to enshrine their beliefs into laws without expiration dates.

Jesus put it this way: "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil will not come to the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." (John 3:19,20)

John Lennon put it this way:

Imagine all the people, living life in peace
...
Imagine all the people, sharing all the world[/i]"

uote="Daystar"]All Christians would like to see, through the lawful process, is stopping abortion and retaining the traditional definition of marriage. As you well know, the vast majority of Americans support that.

As a point of interest, I personally know individuals who identify themselves as Christian that have no interest in defining marriage for anyone other than themselves. There are also folks who identify themselves as Christian who are confident that God will deal with those who participate in abortions, therefore, allow citizens the free will that God instlled in them.

[Day] There has always been one definition of marriage and it is not exclusively Christian. Yes, God has given us free will, but would prefer that we exercise it to repent and love and serve him.

Peace,
DAy

[tcay584]

Hi Spongemom,
Sorry to all...we were rerouted to this forum from another.
Are you seriously asking me to say that infanticide is bad, so abortion must be good because at least the little critter doesn't know what's going on? Give me a break! I saw the same article you did regarding the mom who killed her baby, and it repulsed me. Do I think it would have been "better" if she had aborted? No. You cannot seriously think this woman was even close to sane. She will not be judged eternally for what is obviously a severe form of insanity. All I'm saying is that if a woman does not wish to become pregnant, she should abstain from sex. In my opinion, abortion does more damage to the mother in the form of future emotional pain, guilt, shame, than it's worth. There are so many people willing to adopt....why destroy?

[ENIGMA]

Reposted from previous thread.

Then, by your admission, pregnancy is a normal and natural result of sexual intercourse. What, pray tell, is either normal or natural about being placed under general anesthesia, having your cervix dilated, and the contents of your uterus sucked out? You cannot tell me that the majority of unplanned pregnancies are the result of rape or incest, or that the majority of pregnancies would result in physical harm to the mother. What is so hideous about the idea of not having sex if you don't want to get pregnant???? Have we sunk so low that we can't behave as something more than an animal?

Death is a natural result of living. What pray tell, is either normal or natural about being placed under general anesthesia, having your chest opened, having a major heart valve taken out and replaced with a mechanical one, and then resealing your chest?

Your polemic on what is natural and unnatural just killed my father. Hope your happy.

But wait, there's more:

Pregnancy is a natural result of sexual intercourse. What pray tell, is either normal or natural about being placed under general anesthesia, and giving the woman involved a cesarean section?

Well, looks like you just killed me and probably my mother as well.

How many others need die before it becomes readily obvious that something being "unnatural" is a completely and utterly useless indicator for whether or not a given action should be allowed.

[Spongemom]

Reposted from previous thread.

Pregnancy is a natural result of sexual intercourse. What pray tell, is either normal or natural about being placed under general anesthesia, and giving the woman involved a cesarean section?

Fertility treatments, artificial insemnation, test tube babies...

[tcay584]

The point you choose to ignore is that both the heart valve replacement and the cesarean section were performed to save lives, not destroy them. I wasn't making an argument condemning modern procedures that save lives (in accordance with the Hippocratic Oath). My problem is with those procedures (abortion, euthanasia, death penalty) that take a life unnaturally.

[ENIGMA]

Reposted from previous thread.

Pregnancy is a natural result of sexual intercourse. What pray tell, is either normal or natural about being placed under general anesthesia, and giving the woman involved a cesarean section?

Fertility treatments, artificial insemnation, test tube babies...

Not just that, antibiotics, medicine in general, and heck, even the metal box that you are using to relay messages to this forum...

[Spongemom]

All I'm saying is that if a woman does not wish to become pregnant, she should abstain from sex.

And someone saying that will surely stop all the unprotected sex happening these days. Sure..... Are you also of the opinion that condoms should not be handed out to teenagers?

There are so many people willing to adopt....why destroy?

There are so many (millions and counting) orphaned and abandoned children waiting to be adopted, why insist that we throw even more unwanted ones into the mix?

[tcay584]

Not a big fan of using our human knowledge to create life either.